list_categories

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's read-only (implied but not stated), pagination behavior (though schema hints at it), rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions. For a listing tool with 6 parameters, this leaves significant gaps.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for a listing operation.

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 read-only listing tool with good schema coverage but no output schema or annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks context about return format, error handling, or relationship to other tools. Given the complexity (6 parameters, no output schema), it should provide more guidance on usage patterns.

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 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying filtering by knowledge base. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance understanding of parameter interactions or use cases.

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 clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('categories in a knowledge base'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_knowledge_bases' or 'list_articles' by specifying categories, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'list_catalog_categories' or 'create_category' in usage context.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites like authentication, when to use filtering parameters, or how it differs from similar listing tools (e.g., 'list_catalog_categories'). The description is purely functional without contextual advice.

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