list_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 of behavioral disclosure. It only states the function and gives a hint about categoryId. It does not describe the return format, ordering, error conditions, or side effects. For a list operation, this is minimal and leaves the agent uncertain about what to expect from the response.

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?

A single sentence with two clauses, front-loaded with the action ('获取所有检测分类列表'). It is concise without unnecessary elaboration, though it could be more structurally separated to clearly distinguish the action from the usage hint. Still, it earns its place and is easy to parse.

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?

For a simple list operation with no output schema, the description gives the purpose and a usage hint. However, it does not describe the structure of the returned list (e.g., that each item contains a categoryId field), which an agent needs to correctly extract the ID. Without an output schema, the description should compensate with more detail about the response shape, so it falls short of being fully complete.

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?

There are zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% trivially. The description does not need to add parameter details since there are none. The baseline for a 0-parameter tool is 4, and the description is consistent with that.

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?

States a specific verb ('获取' meaning 'get') and resource ('检测分类列表' meaning 'detection category list'), which clearly identifies the tool's function. It also adds context that categoryId is needed when creating templates, which clarifies its role. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling get_category_tree, which might also return categories, so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 a usage hint: that categoryId is needed when creating templates, implying this tool is the source for that ID. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_category_tree, nor does it mention when not to use it. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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