Get Project Categories

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is read-only and idempotent. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it reveals that the API returns global categories with a '[All Projects] ' prefix, which the tool strips. This is beyond what annotations provide. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

The description is concise, consisting of two sentences that are directly relevant. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second provides a crucial behavioral detail. No unnecessary words or redundant information.

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?

While the description covers purpose and a key behavioral trait, it does not describe the return format or structure (e.g., array of objects with name and id). Given the lack of an output schema, agents may need more context about what is returned. Adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for the single parameter 'project_id'. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema's 'Numeric project ID'. The note about prefix stripping pertains to output, not parameters. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List all categories available for a MantisBT project.' It uses a specific verb (list) and resource (categories), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_issue_enums' or 'get_project_versions'. The note about prefix stripping adds clarity about the output format.

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?

The description implies the tool is used to retrieve categories for creating issues, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites or when not to use this tool. Usage is implied through context but lacks explicit guidance.

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