list_categories

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by noting that the set is account-configured rather than a fixed enum. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to repeat that, but it adds useful information about dynamic data.

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 three sentences, no redundancy. It starts with the core action and then provides context and purpose. Every sentence adds value.

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 read-only list tool, the description covers the return format (id, name, colour) and purpose. However, it does not mention that the list is paginated (as per schema), which is a minor gap. Overall, it's fairly 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?

The input schema has two parameters (page, perPage) with 50% description coverage (only perPage has a description). The description does not mention any parameters, leaving page undocumented. It should at least indicate that pagination is available.

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 the tool lists configured entry/task categories with their colours, IDs, and names. It distinguishes itself from sibling list tools by specifying the resource (categories) and provides examples of categories.

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 explains when to use this tool: to discover valid category IDs before using them in add_note or create_task, and for labeling and filtering. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, but 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.