list-categories

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the core listing behavior and the counts returned, but omits the pagination behavior (continue_from) and the fact that 'list all' is subject to a limit. This could mislead agents into expecting exhaustive results.

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 short sentences with no redundant wording. It front-loads the primary action and includes relevant details about counts and the prefix filter.

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 tool with four parameters fully documented in the schema and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains what the tool does and suggests a use case. However, it misses the pagination nuance and the ability to omit wiki for all-wiki searches, which are documented in the schema but not highlighted in the description.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add much beyond the schema; 'Use prefix to filter by name prefix' restates what the schema already says. No additional parameter semantics are provided.

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 categories with page/subcat/file counts, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on category listing rather than category members or individual pages.

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 provides clear context for use: 'Useful for discovering how content is organized.' It also gives specific usage guidance for the prefix parameter. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name alternatives.

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