get-shape-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. It mentions the library structure but fails to disclose key behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, potential rate limits, or what the return format looks like (e.g., list of strings, objects). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 with two sentences that are front-loaded: the first states the purpose, and the second adds useful context about the library structure. There's no wasted text, making it efficient, though it could be slightly more structured for clarity.

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 (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It explains what the tool does and the library structure, but without annotations or output schema, it should ideally cover more behavioral aspects like return format or usage constraints to be fully adequate.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameters need documentation. The description adds context about the library being split into categories, which provides semantic value beyond the empty schema. This compensates adequately, though it's not extensive due to the lack 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 verb ('retrieves') and resource ('available shape categories'), specifying it's from the diagram's library. It distinguishes from some siblings like 'get-shape-by-name' or 'get-shapes-in-category' by focusing on categories rather than individual shapes, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings.

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 minimal guidance, stating the library is split into categories, which implies this tool is for browsing categories rather than shapes. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use advice, such as when to choose this over 'get-shapes-in-category' or other shape-related tools, and offers no alternatives or exclusions.

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