rsi_explore

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the return shape well: top-level modules with counts, member items with title/brief/id, and related/conflicts graph edges. It does not explicitly state read-only/no-side-effects or pagination behavior, so it falls short of a 5.

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 English portion is front-loaded and efficient, covering behavior, output shape, and the rsi_recall handoff. The full Chinese translation duplicates the same information, which adds length without adding new semantics for a single-language reader.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, yet the description explains both top-level and drill-down return contents, including member fields and graph edges. It also tells the agent how to get full content afterward, which is enough to invoke the tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so path, depth, and limit are already documented. The description restates the empty-path behavior and examples already present in the schema, adding little parameter meaning beyond the structured fields.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: navigating the knowledge tree by domain module. It clearly distinguishes browsing behavior from full-content retrieval by naming rsi_recall as the follow-up tool.

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?

Gives explicit usage conditions: an empty path lists top-level modules, while a path such as backend or backend/api drills down. It also directs agents to rsi_recall for full content, but does not contrast with other siblings such as rsi_knowledge_search or state exclusions.

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