category_recommend

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states the basic recognition capability and return values. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, how accuracy or error cases are handled, or any limitations or prerequisites (e.g., image format), leaving a significant transparency gap.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the core purpose and immediately states inputs and outputs. Every word contributes value, with no redundancy or filler.

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 simple two-parameter tool and the existence of an output schema (which handles return value structure), the description sufficiently covers the main input-output contract. It could add a note about the optionality of images or prerequisites, but for a basic classification tool it is nearly complete.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning by indicating that 'title' and 'image' are the semantic inputs, which the schema titles ('Title', 'Images Json') do not convey. However, it does not clarify that title is required while images_json is optional, nor does it explain the format of images_json beyond what the schema defaults suggest.

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 identifies the tool's function: AI-based product category recognition, with explicit inputs (title and image) and outputs (catId/catName). This distinguishes it from sibling tools, which cover auth, item management, media upload, and messaging.

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 usage when a product title and image are available and a category is needed, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over alternatives or mention any exclusions. No sibling tool offers similar category functionality, so the context is adequate but not fully spelled out.

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