List Categories

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond annotations: the return includes hidden and deleted items flagged for filtering, amounts are in dollars, and the data is scoped to the current month. This gives the agent context about what to expect without relying solely on schema.

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 compact and front-loaded: main purpose first, then usage guidance, then an important data-quality caveat about hidden/deleted items. Every sentence contributes new information, with no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 the simple two-parameter schema, rich annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description covers what an agent needs: scope, purpose, alternatives, and how to handle hidden/deleted entries. There are no obvious missing prerequisites, side effects, or return-behavior gaps that would prevent 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and both parameters (budgetId and lastKnowledgeOfServer) already have meaningful descriptions. The tool description does not add extra parameter-level semantics, which is acceptable because the schema carries the load. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific action (list) and resource (all category groups and categories), plus the output scope (budgeted/activity/balance amounts for the current month). It also distinguishes itself from related tools like get_month and search_categories, making the tool's role immediately clear.

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?

Explicitly says when to use this tool: to find category IDs and survey the budget structure. It also names alternatives for adjacent use cases: get_month for a specific month's numbers and search_categories for name-based lookup. The hidden/deleted filtering instruction adds practical guidance for presenting results.

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