list_categories

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the output includes 'budgeted amounts and activity', which gives some context about what data is returned, but it doesn't cover critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation (implied by 'Get' but not stated), error handling, pagination, or performance considerations. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 front-loads the core purpose ('Get all categories for a budget') and adds useful details without waste. Every part of the sentence earns its place by clarifying scope and included data, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, no nested objects) and high schema coverage, the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It lacks output schema, so the description's mention of 'budgeted amounts and activity' partially compensates, but it doesn't fully explain return values or behavioral traits. With no annotations, it should do more to be complete, but it meets minimum viability for a simple read operation.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'budget_id' documented as 'The budget ID'. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('categories for a budget'), and it provides additional detail about the grouping ('grouped by category group') and included data ('budgeted amounts and activity'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from its sibling 'get_category', which appears to fetch a single category rather than all categories for a budget.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_category' or 'list_budgets'. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid budget ID) or contextual cues for selection among the many list/get tools available. Usage is implied by the purpose but not explicitly stated.

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