list_categories

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds that the result includes ids and rules, which is useful. However, it does not disclose pagination, ordering, or whether categories include subcategories or miscellaneous flags, which would be relevant for a list endpoint.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, and includes concrete examples and return fields. No wasted words.

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 read-only list tool with one fully documented parameter and an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It could mention whether the result is paginated or if categories are ordered, but the output schema likely covers return structure. The annotations cover safety, so nothing critical is missing.

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 100%: the only parameter 'game' is described as 'Game id or abbreviation.' The description adds the context that the game's categories are being listed, but it does not add format or syntax details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('List') and resource ('a game's categories'), and gives concrete examples of category names ('Any%', '120 Star') plus what is returned ('ids and rules'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_variables or get_leaderboard.

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 the tool is for retrieving category metadata for a game, and the required 'game' parameter makes the context clear. It does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives, but the sibling list is broad and the tool's narrow scope is evident. A small deduction for not naming alternatives or exclusions.

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