get_polyhaven_categories

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates this is a read-only retrieval operation ('Get a list'), but it does not disclose details such as network dependency, potential rate limits, caching, or error behavior. For a simple list endpoint, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 highly concise: one purpose sentence followed by a clear, minimal parameter list. Every element earns its place, and the most critical information (what the tool does) is front-loaded.

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?

For a tool with two parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description provides all essential information: purpose, asset_type choices, and user_prompt semantics. The lack of any note about return format or when this might be called in a workflow is a minor gap, but overall the description is sufficient.

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 0%, so the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters: asset_type with its allowed enum-like values (hdris, textures, models, all) and user_prompt with its telemetry purpose. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema names and defaults.

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 a specific verb+resource construction ('Get a list of categories for a specific asset type on Polyhaven') and clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like search_polyhaven_assets or download_polyhaven_asset. The asset_type parameter options (hdris, textures, models, all) further clarify its scope.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of exclusions or prerequisites. The intended use case is only implied by the tool's name and purpose, which is not sufficient for a dedicated usage guideline dimension.

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