get_polyhaven_categories

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

The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, and the parameter explanation clarifies the asset_type scope. However, with no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden and does not disclose behaviors such as error handling for invalid asset_type values or the exact structure of the returned category list. For a simple read tool this is adequate but not rich.

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 extremely concise: one sentence for the tool purpose and one line for the parameter. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words, every sentence earning its place.

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 (only one optional parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description fully covers the essential information. It specifies the parameter's allowed values and the resource being accessed. No critical behavioral or parameter details are missing.

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 provides no description for asset_type (0% coverage), but the description's Parameters section explicitly lists allowed values (hdris, textures, models, all) and explains the parameter's meaning. This fully compensates for the schema gap, adding semantic value beyond the bare schema definition.

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 uses the specific verb 'Get' and identifies the resource 'categories for a specific asset type on Polyhaven'. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like search_polyhaven_assets or download_polyhaven_asset, which focus on searching or downloading assets rather than listing categories.

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 alternative asset-related tools, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The sibling tools list includes several related operations, but the description does not help the agent decide when this category-listing tool is appropriate.

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