get_category_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention that the tool is a read-only GET operation (implied by the endpoint, but not stated), does not describe what the response contains or its format, and does not explain any side effects. The description is minimal and lacks behavioral transparency beyond the endpoint hint.

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 concise, one short sentence with the key resource and endpoint mentioned. It is front-loaded with the action and resource. However, it could be slightly longer to cover usage guidance, but as is, it is efficient and free of fluff.

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 low complexity (one parameter) and no output schema, the description is still incomplete. It lacks explanation of the response structure and any behavioral context (e.g., read-only nature). An agent might know it's a query from the name, but without return format or usage conditions, it is not fully equipped to call 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?

The schema has one parameter (user_id) with 0% coverage in the description. The description does not explain the parameter's meaning or format, but since there is only one simple string parameter, the description is not heavily burdened. The baseline of 3 is appropriate because the parameter is self-explanatory from its name, but the description adds no extra semantic detail.

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 verb '查询' (query) and the resource '分类信息' (category information), with an explicit endpoint. It distinguishes from siblings by indicating it fetches preset categories (图标/预设分类), which is specific enough to separate from category-modification tools like save_parent_category or delete_child_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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions the endpoint but does not explain when to use this over other category-related tools or any prerequisites (e.g., auth status). The context of 'icon/preset categories' implies its scope but leaves the agent to infer usage.

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