formula_categories

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It does reveal the return structure (success flag and categories per source), but it does not explicitly state side effects, error handling, or that the operation is read-only. The verb 'list' implies non-mutating behavior, but the description could be more explicit about safety.

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 concise and well-structured, with clear sections for purpose, arguments, and return value. Every sentence contributes value, and the front-loaded purpose statement makes the tool's function immediately clear. No unnecessary verbosity.

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 listing tool with one optional parameter, the description covers the parameter options and the full return structure. It lacks error-case documentation, but the tool's simplicity and the detailed Returns section make it sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 provides no description for the 'source' parameter (0% coverage). The description fully compensates by enumerating all valid values ('all', 'wikidata', 'biomodels', 'scipy') and their defaults, which adds significant meaning beyond the bare 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 clearly states the tool lists available formula categories (列出可用的公式分類) and retrieves categories supported by each data source for more precise searching. This is a specific verb+resource pairing that distinguishes it from sibling tools like formula_search, which searches formulas rather than listing 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 provides clear context by stating the purpose is '用於更精確的搜尋' (for more precise searching), implying it should be used to obtain categories before searching. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it lacks exclusions that would earn a 5.

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