app_infos__primary_category__get

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that it reads the primary category but does not elaborate on other behaviors (e.g., authentication requirements, rate limits, or error conditions). Given the annotations, this is adequate.

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 a single sentence plus the HTTP endpoint reference, with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, read-only, no output schema), the description is minimal but sufficient for a basic understanding. However, it lacks details about the return format, which might be helpful for an agent. The annotations cover behavioral safety, so completeness is acceptable but not outstanding.

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%, both parameters have descriptive texts in the schema. The description does not add any extra meaning about parameters; the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents them sufficiently.

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 'Read the primary category for an app info', which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like app_infos__get (full info) and app_infos__primary_subcategory_one__get (different subresource). The HTTP endpoint further clarifies the operation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many related sibling tools (e.g., app_infos__get, app_infos__primary_subcategory_one__get), the agent would benefit from explicit context about when to choose this one.

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