categories

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses that hidden/maintenance categories are filtered out, which is useful. However, it omits other behavioral details like whether results are ordered, pagination behavior, or whether it requires authentication.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a use-case and a filtering note. Every sentence earns its place without 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?

Given no output schema exists, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (categories) and the filtering behavior. It doesn't cover return format or pagination details, but overall provides sufficient context for an agent to invoke it correctly, though minor gaps remain.

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%, meaning all parameters are already documented in the schema with descriptions and defaults. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, so the 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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (Wikipedia categories an article belongs to) with clear scope. The description distinguishes it from text-search siblings by describing it as taxonomy-based discovery, making the purpose immediately identifiable among tools like search or links.

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?

Provides clear context for when to use the tool: 'taxonomy-based discovery — finding related topics that don't appear in text search.' This implicitly contrasts with search but doesn't name specific sibling tools or state explicit exclusions or prerequisites.

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