Search Help & Browse

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the precedence rule ('If both provided, subcategory takes precedence'), the sorting behavior ('sorted by part count'), and the relationship to jlc_search. No contradictions with annotations.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds value: purpose statement, usage rules, parameter details, return values, and examples. No redundant information, and the example section efficiently demonstrates three key usage patterns.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (hierarchical browsing with multiple modes), the description is complete. It covers all parameter combinations, return formats for each case, and ties into the broader workflow with jlc_search. With annotations covering safety and an output schema presumably detailing return structures, no gaps remain.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters in detail: 'category: Category name (e.g., "Connectors") or ID (e.g., 13). Lists subcategories.' and 'subcategory: Subcategory name (e.g., "MOSFETs") or ID (e.g., 2954). Lists filterable attributes.' It also clarifies precedence and provides concrete examples.

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's purpose: 'Browse categories, subcategories, and filterable attributes to help build searches.' It specifies the verb ('browse') and resources ('categories, subcategories, filterable attributes'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like jlc_search by explaining it's for discovery rather than actual searching.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'Call with no args to list all categories. Pass a category to see its subcategories. Pass a subcategory to discover filterable attributes for use with jlc_search spec_filters.' It also references the sibling tool jlc_search for actual searching, creating clear alternatives.

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