wendys_directory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the one-level-at-a-time behavior, the early-link behavior for single-store cities, and the is_store flag that distinguishes store pages from directory levels. It also explains what each child contains (name, path, URL, store counts). This is strong behavioral disclosure for a read-only navigation tool, though it doesn't mention pagination or error cases.

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 dense but well-organized: it front-loads the core behavior, then explains navigation rules, then describes child fields, then the is_store flag. Every sentence adds information; there is no filler or repetition of schema content.

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 one-parameter directory browser with no output schema, the description covers the essential behaviors: root handling, descent rules, child structure, and the store-page handoff. It could mention what happens at the deepest level or whether the response includes counts at the store level, but these are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter (path) is well-described in the schema. The description adds value by explaining the path format ('united-states/oh') and the omit-for-root behavior, which goes beyond the schema's description. With only one parameter and full schema coverage, the description's additional context earns a 4.

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 a specific verb ('Browse') and resource (Wendy's store directory), and explains the tree structure with root, country, state, city, and store levels. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like wendys_store, wendys_restaurant, and wendys_nearby by focusing on the directory tree navigation rather than store details or location search.

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 explicitly explains when to omit path (root) and when to pass a child's path to descend, including the special case of single-store cities linking directly to store pages. It also tells the agent to pass a store path to GET /wendys/store, which routes to the correct sibling tool. This is clear, actionable guidance with no ambiguity.

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