list_categories

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the output scope ('top level and subcategories') and does not explain how the with_children parameter changes that scope. It conveys a read-only listing resource, yet leaves parameter-dependent behavior and response details to be inferred from the schema and output schema.

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 definition is a single, brief sentence with no redundancy, naming the resource and its two relevant levels. It is efficiently structured, though it could have included parameter guidance without much added length.

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 tool with one optional parameter and an existing output schema, the description is minimally viable, but it omits the effect of with_children and provides no explicit usage boundaries against sibling category tools. The output schema covers return shape, yet the lack of parameter guidance and usage context leaves a small but real gap.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description never mentions the only parameter, with_children. The parameter name and default are self-evident from the schema, but the tool description adds no explicit meaning about how the boolean affects the returned catalog tree.

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 identifies the resource as the catalog tree and specifies its content: top-level categories and subcategories. It lacks an explicit verb, relying on the tool name, and does not directly contrast with sibling tools like category_products, so it is clear but not fully differentiating.

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 that this tool is for retrieving hierarchical category data, but it gives no explicit guidance about when to use it instead of category_products or category_filters. There are no exclusions or alternative routing clues, so applicability must be inferred from the tool name and the phrase 'catalog tree.'

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