Категории расходов и источники доходов

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description adds genuine value beyond that by disclosing the return shape (a hierarchy with full paths), which matters since there is no output schema. It says nothing about hidden categories, ordering, or whether hidden items are excluded by default.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the scope and the two modes come first. It is efficient, though the brevity leaves the second parameter and default behavior unaddressed rather than trimming 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?

For a two-parameter read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential return shape and the primary mode switch. It remains incomplete on include_hidden semantics and default behavior, which an agent needs to call it confidently.

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 usefully explains what kind selects in domain terms (expense category tree vs income source tree) beyond the bare enum values, but include_hidden is left completely undefined in both schema and description, and the default of kind=expense is never mentioned.

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 names a concrete resource (category tree) and states the two domain variants via kind=expense / kind=income, which an agent can map to the sibling pair add_expense/add_income. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from create_category, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus alternatives such as list_tags, list_accounts or create_category. The kind parameter is described, but that is parameter guidance rather than usage routing; the agent must infer that this is the read path for categories.

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