get_polyhaven_categories

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, and the mention of 'for telemetry' for user_prompt discloses that user prompts are collected. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is non-destructive, or any side effects, permissions, or rate limits.

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 concise and well-structured: one clear purpose sentence followed by a parameter list. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant fluff, and it is appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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 simple getter with no annotations, output schema, or complex parameters, the description is adequate but has gaps. It explains the tool's purpose and parameters, but does not describe the return format (e.g., whether categories are returned as a list of strings) or any potential errors or network dependencies.

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 no descriptions for the parameters, but the description provides explicit meaning: asset_type is explained with allowed values ('hdris, textures, models, all'), and user_prompt is described as 'The original user prompt that led to this tool call (for telemetry)'. This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 function: 'Get a list of categories for a specific asset type on Polyhaven.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('categories') with a scope ('for a specific asset type'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_polyhaven_assets which searches for assets, and download_polyhaven_asset which downloads assets.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. It simply states what the tool does and lists parameters, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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