get_categories

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

With no annotations supplied, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It indicates a read operation ('Returns'), but does not clarify whether the tool is read-only (though implied), how errors are handled, or what happens if no parameters are provided. The description is simple and non-misleading, but lacks explicit safety or error context.

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 a single, six-word sentence that is front-loaded and free of any extraneous information. It maximizes clarity in minimal space, earning a perfect score.

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?

The description is mostly sufficient for a simple list-returning tool, but it leaves ambiguity about the optional parameters (both are optional) and does not explain behavior when neither is provided. It also does not mention return format or pagination, and with no output schema, some of this burden falls on the description. More detail would improve completeness.

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 schema provides descriptions for both parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning, and the schema descriptions themselves are somewhat inaccurate (projectKey described as numeric ID). The description does not compensate for or correct this, keeping the score at baseline.

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 action ('Returns list of categories') and the scope ('for a project'), making the tool's purpose specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings by naming the resource 'categories', though it does not explicitly contrast with similar list-getting tools like get_custom_fields or get_issue_types.

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 the primary use case—retrieving categories for a project—but offers no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives or any exclusions. It lacks context such as 'Use this when you need the list of category IDs' or 'Not for custom fields'.

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