Get Category

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, indicating a safe, idempotent read. The description confirms read-only behavior (lists, returns configuration). Discloses domain-scoped nature. Does not contradict annotations. Adds details about optional icon, but could mention that the output schema exists (though not shown).

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?

Well-organized with sections (overview, properties, examples, related tools). About 10 sentences, but each sentence adds value. Could be slightly more concise by merging the examples into a list, but overall efficient and front-loaded with purpose.

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 params) and the presence of an output schema (not shown but context indicates coverage), the description covers all behavioral aspects: parameter behavior, returned properties, usage examples, and even mentions external methods for creation and assignment. It is contextually complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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% with both parameters documented. The description adds significant value beyond the schema: clarifies behavior based on category_id presence, lists the returned properties (ID, Name, Icon) not in schema, and provides concrete examples showing parameter usage and expected outputs.

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 explicitly states the tool lists categories for a scope or gets a specific one by ID. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ha_config_set_category (create/update) and ha_set_entity (assign to entities). The verb+resource is clear and specific.

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 when-to-use guidance: without category_id lists all categories for a scope, with category_id returns specific. Includes multiple examples. References ha_config_set_category for creating/updating and ha_set_entity for assigning, giving alternatives and related operations.

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