get_category_paths

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

No annotations provided, but the description discloses key behaviors: batch parsing, return structure (data.items with fields), cost (~1 point, ~2s), and that output size matches input array. It explains what the tool does and its efficiency, making the behavior fully transparent.

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 organized into clear sections (use when, don't use, returns, pair with, cost) and is well front-loaded. While slightly lengthy, every sentence adds value and there is no redundancy. A minor trim could be possible, but structure is effective.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description details the return structure thoroughly. It covers behavior, cost, pairing with other tools, and typical use cases. For a simple tool with 2 parameters, this is comprehensive and leaves no gaps for agents to misunderstand.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond schema by clarifying the purpose of categoryIds (converting to full path), providing examples, and explaining the site parameter's default. This extra context justifies a 4.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: batch convert category IDs to full breadcrumb paths, with a clear example. It differentiates from sibling tools like get_category_children and notes that other tools may already include the path, so the purpose is specific and distinct.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use (reports, analysis, multiple IDs), when-not-to-use (single ID, tree structure), and alternatives (get_category_children). Also suggests pairing with upstream tools (filter_niches/filter_categories) and downstream use (human consumption), offering comprehensive usage guidance.

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