Autoload: category fields

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

The description declares 'Read-only', aligning with annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true). It adds the prerequisite workflow, but no additional behavioral details beyond what annotations provide.

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 with no waste. First sentence clearly lists return information, second sentence gives usage guidance. Front-loaded with essential purpose.

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?

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what it returns and the prerequisite. It provides enough context for an agent to use it correctly.

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 clear description for node_slug. The description adds context that the slug comes from autoload_user_docs_tree, but this is already implied in the schema description. Baseline 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 it returns category fields (tags) with their types, required status, dependencies, allowed values, and references. It distinguishes itself from sibling autoload_user_docs_tree by positioning itself as a follow-up step.

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 explicitly says to first call autoload_user_docs_tree to get the slug, then use this tool. It also states the use case: preparing XML/Excel files. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' but is clear enough.

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