get-shapes-in-category

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions that shapes contain 'style' for creating 'new vertex cells', hinting at downstream usage, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, error conditions, or response format. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. The second sentence adds context about shape content, which is useful but not essential. It's efficient with minimal waste, though could be slightly more streamlined.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., list of shapes, error handling), behavioral aspects, or how it fits with siblings. For a tool with 1 parameter and 100% schema coverage, it should provide more context on usage and results.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'category_id' well-documented in the schema as 'Identifier (ID / key) of the category'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'retrieve' and resource 'shapes in the provided category', specifying it's from 'the diagram's library'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get-shape-by-name' (retrieves by name) and 'get-shape-categories' (retrieves categories), but doesn't explicitly contrast them. The purpose is specific and actionable.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get-shape-by-name' or 'list-paged-model' is provided. The description implies usage for retrieving shapes by category, but lacks context on prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools. This leaves the agent to infer usage scenarios.

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