inei_browse_topics

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

No annotations provided, so description carries burden. Discloses return size (~1977 entries), node types (categoria vs indicador), and the significance of id_indicador. Does not mention idempotency, pagination, or authentication needs, but sufficient for a browse tool.

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?

Five sentences, front-loaded with action and result. Each sentence adds distinct value (purpose, structure, usage, example). No redundant or verbose 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?

Despite no output schema, description fully explains return structure and chaining to inei_get_indicator_data. All 2 parameters are well-described. Sibling tools are listed, and the description indirectly differentiates by showing this tool is for browsing the tree.

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 100% (baseline 3). Description adds meaning: explains root_id filters by id_tema, only_indicators returns leaf nodes, and clarifies that id_indicador is only on tipo=2 nodes. These details aid agent in correct parameter usage.

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 it browses the INEI thematic indicator tree, defines hierarchical structure with categories (tipo=1) and leaf indicators (tipo=2), and lists top-level categories. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like inei_get_indicator_data and inei_search_indicators.

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?

Provides guidance on using id_indicador with inei_get_indicator_data and the root_id parameter to filter. Notes that omitting root_id yields a large response. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or comparison with all siblings, but context is clear.

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