get_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. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, and the mention of income/expense provides some context. However, it does not explicitly state safety, return format, or edge cases, leaving some transparency gaps.

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?

Two concise sentences that front-load the purpose and then provide the use case. No unnecessary words, easily scannable.

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 list tool with one optional parameter, the description is adequate but does not explicitly state the return structure (e.g., array of category objects with ids). Since no output schema exists, the description could be more complete, but the main purpose and usage are clear.

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 schema describes the single optional 'name' parameter (case-insensitive search) with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter details, so it relies on the schema, which is acceptable but does not go beyond it.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('income/expense categories'), and adds a specific use case (finding categoryId for filtering transactions). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_accounts and get_labels.

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 guidance on when to use this tool: when you need a categoryId for filtering transactions. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the intended usage is unambiguous and contextual.

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