listIssueCategories

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by disclosing that the output is meant to be reused as categoryId and that the lookup is scoped to one known project, which informs how the agent should use the result.

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?

Two short sentences front-load the purpose and add one directly actionable usage note. There is no redundant restatement of the tool name, title, or annotations.

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 single-parameter read-only list tool with an output schema, the description fully supports correct invocation: the agent knows the required projectId, the nature of the returned data, and how to consume it downstream. Nothing essential is missing.

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%, so projectId is already described as 'Project identifier or numeric ID'. The description adds no additional parameter syntax or constraints beyond the idea of a known project, which is acceptable since the schema carries the parameter meaning.

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?

Clearly states a specific verb+resource: list issue categories for one project, and names the meaningful output (IDs and names). It distinguishes itself from sibling metadata tools like listPriorities, listStatuses, and listTrackers by focusing specifically on issue categories.

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?

States it is for discovering category IDs for a known project and explicitly connects the result to createIssue or updateIssue via categoryId. It does not name excluded alternatives, but the 'one known project' scope and category-specific purpose give an agent clear context to select it correctly.

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