list_categories

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It states the tool lists categories with counts, implying a read-only operation, but it doesn't mention any potential side effects, sorting order, pagination, or limits. For a simple listing tool, this is adequate, but it does not add context beyond the basic action. Since it's a read operation and the description is straightforward, a 3 is appropriate.

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 front-loads the primary purpose and appends the usage guidance. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary detail. It is exemplary in conciseness.

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 has no parameters, no output schema, and a simple listing function, the description is complete enough for an agent to understand its function and when to call it. It lacks details like return format or potential caveats, but these are not essential for a tool of this simplicity. It could be slightly more comprehensive, but it's sufficient.

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 baseline for parameter semantics is 4. The description does not need to add parameter details because there are none. It adds no parameter-related information, but that's acceptable given the absence of parameters.

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 (SwiftForge component categories), and the specific output (how many curated SwiftUI components each holds). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_components (which lists components) and get_component (which gets a single component). The purpose is unambiguous and differentiates well.

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 explicitly says 'Call this first to see what's available,' providing a clear when-to-use directive. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the guidance to call first is sufficient to convey its role as an entry point. This is clear context, though it could have mentioned using list_components for actual components.

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