get_browser_tree

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, which is transparent, but it does not disclose any potential behavioral traits such as whether the tree includes all categories or is limited in depth, or whether it requires an open project.

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: one sentence for the purpose plus a compact list of parameter explanations. Every part is useful, and it is front-loaded with the main function.

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 tool with two parameters, the description covers the purpose and parameter semantics adequately. It lacks an output schema and does not discuss return structure, but the 'hierarchical tree' phrase implies the nature of the response. It is reasonably complete for this complexity level.

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 description provides explicit explanations for both parameters, including the allowed values for category_type and the purpose of user_prompt. Since the schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), this fully compensates and adds meaningful semantics.

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 ('Get') and resource ('hierarchical tree of browser categories from Ableton'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_browser_items_at_path or search_browser_items that deal with items, not the category tree structure.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what the tool does, without mentioning related tools (e.g., get_browser_items_at_path) or any exclusion scenarios.

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