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. It discloses that the tool returns every category with its record count, which is a clear behavioral trait. It does not mention performance, data freshness, or side effects, but for a simple read-only list tool, the description is adequate.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the key action ('Return every category') and includes the purpose. Every word earns its place with no wasted content.

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 no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is relatively complete for a simple list tool. However, it could be improved by mentioning the response format (e.g., whether categories are sorted) or any limits. The explanation of purpose is helpful, but the lack of output schema details leaves some ambiguity.

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 no parameters, so schema description coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds no parameter information, but with zero parameters, a baseline score of 4 is appropriate as the description already provides value 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 states 'Return every category' with a specific verb and resource, and explains the purpose ('so filters can be built against real values rather than guesses'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools which deal with solutions, not 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 implies when to use this tool: when building filters based on real category values. It provides context but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use it. However, siblings are clearly different (solutions), so the guidance is sufficient.

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