list_categories

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavior. The verb 'List' implies a safe, read-only operation, and the statement about counts indicates the nature of the returned data. However, it does not disclose potential details such as ordering, pagination, or whether the counts are live/aggregated, though the presence of an output schema partially mitigates this.

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, efficiently worded sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then specifies the output details. Every element is necessary and informative with no padding.

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 (no parameters), the description sufficiently communicates the operation, and the presence of an output schema covers return-value details. An agent can correctly invoke this tool based on the provided information alone.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the input schema fully covers the parameter surface. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics; stating that it lists all categories with counts is sufficient context for a no-argument call.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('all tool categories') and further specifies the output content ('counts of tools, skills, and apps'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like get_tool or search_tools by indicating a distinct aggregating/list operation rather than a lookup or search.

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 clearly conveys this tool is for enumerating tool categories with associated counts, giving an agent a clear context for when to use it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the read-only list semantics are readily apparent and distinct from the sibling tools.

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