List categories

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the return payload shape (names, entry counts, purpose text) and the read-only listing nature. It omits ordering, whether categories with zero entries appear, and whether the list is complete or truncated, which are minor but real gaps for a no-parameter enumerator.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler. The returned-content summary comes first and the downstream-usage pointer second, which is the correct front-loading order.

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 zero-parameter list tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies enough: what comes back and how to use it. It stops short of describing ordering or empty-state behavior, which an agent might want, but nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing about inputs the description needs to explain. The description instead spends its words on output semantics, which is the right allocation.

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 states a specific resource (all user-defined categories) and enumerates exactly what each returned item contains (entry counts, purpose descriptions). It also clarifies the domain concept — categories group mixed history entry types (clips, transcriptions, recordings, live talks) into projects — so an agent can distinguish this from entry-level siblings like eve_get or eve_recent.

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?

It explicitly routes the agent forward ('Use the names with eve_recent/eve_search category filters or eve_categorize'), which is the primary reason to call this tool. However, it offers no exclusion criteria — e.g. it never says not to use this when you only need a single category or when eve_activity would suffice.

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