list_categories

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the result is a tree structure and that it is scoped to the authenticated user, which are useful behavioral details. However, it does not mention pagination, sorting, depth limits, or error cases, leaving some gaps for a list operation.

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, concise sentence that states the resource, scope, and return structure. Every word adds value and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 params, no output schema) and the sibling context, the description sufficiently covers what the tool does and its return shape. It could mention whether the tree is recursive or how categories are ordered, but for a basic list operation it is nearly complete.

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 schema coverage is trivially 100%. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adds no parameter semantics because none are needed. This score reflects the absence of any parameter-related burden.

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 action ('List'), the resource ('all categories'), and the scope ('for the authenticated user'), with a distinctive return detail ('returns tree structure'). This unambiguously separates it from siblings like get_category (singular) and list_category_rules (different resource).

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 gives clear context that this tool is for retrieving all categories in a tree format for the authenticated user, but it does not explicitly mention when to use it over alternatives or when not to use it. The usage is implied rather than directly contrasted with e.g., get_category.

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