get_attachment_categories

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully bears the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the API uses the class name from caseID to fetch categories, filters by type, and returns only configured categories. It also mentions permission details (view, create, edit, delete). No contradictions.

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 reasonably concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it includes some redundant phrasing (e.g., 'useful for understanding') that could be trimmed. Still, it is informative without being overly verbose.

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 there is no output schema, the description adequately explains return values (category metadata with permissions). It covers filtering logic and parameter dependencies. The tool is straightforward, and the description provides sufficient context for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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%, but the description adds meaningful context: e.g., explaining that the API derives class name from caseID, the case-insensitive filtering by type, and the default value for type. For sessionCredentials, it outlines authentication modes. This adds value beyond the schema.

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 retrieves attachment categories for a Pega case, filtered by type (File or URL), and returns metadata including permissions. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_attachment and get_case_attachments which focus on attachments themselves rather than 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 explains when to use the tool (to understand available attachment categories and user permissions) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it to alternatives. However, it provides enough context for most use cases.

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