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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the user_prompt is for telemetry, which adds context, but it does not state whether this is a read-only operation, any potential side effects, or what the response will contain. It is a simple list operation, so lack of detail is acceptable but not ideal.

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 concise with a clear first sentence and a structured parameter list. It avoids redundancy and is appropriately sized, though it could be slightly more organized with the parameter details visually separated more cleanly.

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 simple list tool with no output schema, the description is mostly complete but lacks details about the return format, whether categories are hierarchical, or any limitations. It does not mention how to interpret the results, but given the simplicity, this is a moderate gap.

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 description explicitly explains both parameters: asset_type with its possible values (hdris, textures, models, all) and user_prompt with its telemetry purpose. Since the schema has no property descriptions (0% coverage), this fully compensates and adds significant meaning beyond the field 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 clearly states it gets a list of categories for a specific asset type on Polyhaven, specifying the verb (get), resource (categories), and scope (asset type). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_polyhaven_assets or download_polyhaven_asset, which have different purposes.

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 implies usage context (when you need categories for an asset type) but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or any prerequisites. There is no mention of related tools like get_polyhaven_status, so guidance is minimal.

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