getIssueCategories

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'list' which implies a read operation, but fails to mention authorization needs, rate limits, pagination behavior, or any side effects. The agent is left without critical safety and performance information.

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 sentence, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It fails to earn its place by not adding value beyond the tool name. However, it is short and does not contain unnecessary fluff, so it does not warrant the lowest 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?

Given the tool has two required parameters with nested objects and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the tool's purpose in a broader workflow, how to use the parameters, or what the output represents. The agent has insufficient information to use the tool correctly.

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%, meaning no parameter descriptions are in the schema. The description does not mention any parameters (format, projectId, nometa) or explain their purpose, usage, or constraints. The agent cannot infer that projectId specifies the project context or that format controls the response format.

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 'List issue categories' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name without adding new information. It does not specify that the tool lists categories for a given project, which is required by the schema (projectId). Compared to sibling tool 'getIssueCategory' (singular), the description does not clarify that this tool returns a list rather than a single category.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'getIssueCategory' for a single category. There are no prerequisites mentioned (e.g., project existence) or context about typical use cases. The description offers no help for the agent to decide when to invoke this tool.

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