list_categories

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool is public, requires no token, returns a defined shape, and imposes a contract on downstream tools. It does not mention ordering or stability guarantees, but these are minor for a simple category listing.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, followed by output structure, downstream usage, and authentication status. Every clause earns its place.

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 zero parameters, an output schema, and a simple public read-only purpose, the description is fully sufficient. It states what the tool returns, how the results should be consumed, and that no auth is required.

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 zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds value beyond that by explaining that the returned slug is the expected value for the `category` field elsewhere, making the data contract explicit. No further parameter documentation is needed.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'List the categories Sigrix accepts for a listing' and further defines the output as slug, name, and one-sentence description. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling listing-management tools, which operate on listings rather than the category vocabulary.

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 downstream guidance: pass a returned slug as `category`, and notes that the publish gate refuses any other value. It also says no token is needed. While it does not name an alternative tool for this purpose, no sibling tool provides category data, so the usage context is clear.

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