browse_nodes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses that the tool returns a tree with 3 levels of children and can start from a specific node or root. This covers key behavioral traits, though it doesn't discuss pagination or limits, which is acceptable for a simple browse operation.

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 extremely concise with two sentences. The first sentence states the purpose and specifics (tree, 3 levels), and the second gives usage guidance. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 low complexity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is complete. It explains the tool's functionality, how to use it (omit node_id for root), and provides a well-known root ID. The return value is described as a tree of children up to 3 levels, which is sufficient for this simple tool.

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 coverage is 100% with one parameter (node_id). The description adds valuable context beyond the schema: 'Start from this node (omit for root). Well-known: root=00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000001'. This clarifies usage and provides a concrete example.

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 verb 'browse' and the resource 'knowledge graph structure', and specifies it returns a tree with 3 levels of children from a starting node or root. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_knowledge or fetch_and_save.

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 says 'Use this to understand how knowledge is organized before searching or saving', providing clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, though the sibling tools list provides some implicit differentiation.

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