qlty_distinctCategories

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

Annotations already set readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, ensuring the agent knows it's safe and repeatable. The description adds behavioral details: the optional 'persist' parameter materializes a volatile table and returns its name. This goes beyond the annotations, but doesn't cover potential performance notes or the exact format of non-persisted results.

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 divided into a usage paragraph and an argument list. It's front-loaded with the core action. Each sentence provides necessary information without redundancy. Could be slightly tighter, but overall efficient.

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 output schema, the description should clarify the return format. It states 'Get unique values' and for persist 'returns table name', but doesn't specify the structure when persist is false (e.g., an array). This is a minor gap. Otherwise, for a 4-param tool with full schema coverage, it covers the essentials.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 4 parameters. The description echoes and expands slightly, e.g., stating the requirement for column_name and the ask-for-clarification rule. This adds value beyond the schema, such as the persist behavior, but the schema already defines each parameter's role well.

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 purpose as 'Get the unique (distinct) values present in a specific column of a table.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('unique values'), and the name 'distinctCategories' aligns. Among siblings like qlty_columnSummary (summarizes statistics), this tool's purpose is distinct and clear.

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 when to use: 'Use when the user asks what unique values, categories, or entries exist.' It also provides a prerequisite instruction: 'if no column name is specified, ask for clarification.' This gives clear context, though it does not explicitly exclude other cases or mention alternatives.

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