categories_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description confirms read-only nature and lists fields, but adds no new behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide (e.g., pagination, auth requirements). No contradiction.

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 two sentences. The first sentence defines purpose and endpoint, and the second provides actionable usage guidance. No redundant or unnecessary text. Front-loaded with key information.

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 only one parameter and no output schema, the description lists return fields and links usage to another tool. However, it fails to explain the 'site' parameter, which is critical for invocation. This gap reduces completeness for a low-complexity tool.

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 required parameter 'site' with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain what 'site' represents (e.g., site identifier or domain), leaving the agent to guess. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.

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 clearly states 'List all ecommerce product categories' and includes the endpoint path. It explicitly mentions the fields returned (id, name, slug, parent_id, depth, created_at, updated_at) and provides a usage example linking to products_list, distinguishing it from sibling tools like category_get.

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 gives explicit guidance on using the output with products_list via 'Use category.id from the results as the products_list(category_id=...) filter.' It also marks the tool as read-only. However, it does not state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives like category_get for a single category.

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