bookstack_tool_categories

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'detailed information' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, or what format the output takes. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic purpose.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action, making it easy to parse, though it could be slightly more specific to improve clarity.

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 complexity (a tool with one parameter but no output schema or annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'detailed information' entails, the return format, or any behavioral context, which is inadequate for an informational tool that might guide usage of other tools in the system.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'category' clearly documented as 'Specific category to get detailed info about' and an enum list. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states the tool 'Get detailed information about tool categories and their specific use cases', which provides a clear verb ('Get detailed information') and resource ('tool categories'). However, it doesn't distinguish this from potential sibling tools like 'bookstack_help' or 'bookstack_error_guides' that might also provide informational content, making it somewhat vague about its specific niche.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context for selecting a category, or how it differs from other informational tools in the sibling list, leaving the agent without explicit usage instructions.

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