product_categoriesRetrieve the product category tree for a salon, with an option to bypass the local cache and fetch fresh categories.
Product category tree.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fresh | No | Skip the local cache |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not mention the local cache behavior implied by the `fresh` parameter, tree depth, or whether results are paginated.
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?
Three words are certainly concise, but the brevity stems from under-specification rather than efficient information design. Nothing is front-loaded because there is essentially no 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?
The tool is simple (one optional param, no output schema, annotations covering safety), but an agent still lacks any description of the returned tree structure or when the cache-skipping option matters. The description is too thin for even a simple listing 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?
There is a single optional parameter with 100% schema coverage ('Skip the local cache'), so the schema carries the load and a baseline of 3 applies. The description contributes no additional meaning about caching or refresh behavior.
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 'Product category tree' essentially restates the name and title without a verb or scope statement. It leaves unclear whether the tool returns the full tree, a flat list of categories, or a nested hierarchy, and does nothing to distinguish it from sibling tools like product_catalog or product_brands.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as product_catalog, product_brands, or product_suppliers. Usage is only weakly implied by the resource name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.