Get Project Categories

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real behavioral value by disclosing that global categories carry a '[All Projects] ' prefix which this tool strips. That transformation is non-obvious and affects what the caller receives. It stops short of pagination or ordering behavior, hence 4 not 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, purpose front-loaded, and the second sentence is a genuine note about output normalization rather than filler. No redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

A simple single-parameter read tool with no output schema and annotations covering the safety profile; the description is nearly complete for that surface. The prefix-stripping note is especially valuable given there is no output schema to reveal it, though ordering/empty-result behavior remains unstated.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with a single fully-described project_id parameter, so the schema carries the semantics. The description adds no format or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides, making 3 the correct baseline.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('categories') scoped to a MantisBT project. The mention of 'all categories available for a project' clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_project_versions, get_project_users, or get_issue_enums.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the note that returned names 'can be used directly when creating issues' hints at the create_issue workflow, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative. Adequate but with a clear gap.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.