list_categories

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral transparency burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation, and the optional filters describe behavior, but the description does not explicitly state safety, authentication needs, or return behavior. It is adequate but not rich in behavioral disclosure.

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 that leads with the main action and adds filtering details concisely. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or filler content.

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 tool with only two optional parameters and an existing output schema, the description sufficiently covers the purpose and filtering behavior. It does not explain edge cases like no filters or errors, but the schema defaults and the straightforward nature make this acceptable.

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?

Although the schema description coverage is 0%, the description compensates by explaining both parameters as filters: 'wallet' maps to wallet_id and 'expense/income type' maps to category_type. It clarifies their optional nature and purpose, adding meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 uses a specific verb+resource construction: 'List Spendee categories', and adds scope with optional filtering by wallet and expense/income type. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_transactions or list_labels, establishing a unique purpose.

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 when to use the tool: when you need categories with optional wallet/type filtering. However, it does not explicitly state alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusion cases, leaving the usage context to inference rather than explicit guidance.

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