list_categories

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It reveals the output format (map with counts) but omits how the `filter` parameter affects results, whether results are sorted, or any other behavioral nuances. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with a parameter.

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, information-dense sentence with a concrete example. Every word earns its place, and it avoids repetition or irrelevant details.

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?

The tool is simple and the description captures its core listing behavior, but the unexplained filter parameter and lack of usage guidance reduce completeness. The presence of an output schema helps, but doesn't compensate for the parameter ambiguity.

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 schema has a single `filter` parameter with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not mention it at all. This is a critical omission; the agent cannot know what `filter` accepts or how it modifies the output.

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 'list' and clearly names the resource 'script directories in the indexed tree' with output details ('map of where things live'), making its purpose obvious and distinct from the search-oriented sibling tools.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions. However, the function itself implies a directory-overview use case, and its uniqueness among siblings provides an implied context.

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