wingstop_directory

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

The description discloses key behaviors: it returns only one level, the structure of each child (name, path, url, kind), and distinguishes store records. It also indicates the read-only nature implicitly. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden and does so adequately.

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 concise but informative, covering purpose, usage, and return structure in a few sentences without redundancy. It is well-structured and front-loaded.

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 simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is complete. It explains the tree structure, how to traverse, and what each node contains, enabling an agent to call it 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?

The schema already documents the 'path' parameter fully (100% coverage). The description adds context about the hierarchy (root, descend country to states, etc.) but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema. It meets the baseline for well-documented schemas.

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 function: browsing the Wingstop store directory and returning one level of the hierarchy. It specifies the resource (store directory) and the action (browse/return). It distinguishes from sibling tools by describing the directory traversal, though it does not explicitly name alternatives like wingstop_store or wingstop_nearby.

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 explains how to use the tool: omit path for root, use previous children's path to descend. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It hints that for store details, one should pass the path to GET /wingstop/store, but that is not a clear when-to-use statement.

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