browse_categories

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states a read action ('Browse') and gives examples, but fails to mention what exactly is returned (e.g., article titles, metadata), whether items are paginated or sorted, or how errors like invalid categories are handled. This is minimal behavioral context.

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 a single, concise sentence with illustrative examples, front-loaded with the key action and resource. No filler or redundant phrasing.

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?

This is a simple two-parameter tool, but without an output schema the description should ideally indicate what the response looks like. It omits any mention of return format, though the name and verb imply a list of articles. The description is adequate for basic usage but not fully complete.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions and examples for both parameters. The description's category examples are redundant with the schema's own examples and add no new semantic meaning. Base score of 3 is appropriate because schema handles parameter explanation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Browse') with a clear resource ('Memory Alpha articles') and a scope ('by category'), providing examples for context. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_memory_alpha or get_article, which have different functions.

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 usage is implied from the tool's name and verb – it's for browsing by category – but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it vs. alternatives like search_memory_alpha. No exclusions or contrasting scenarios are mentioned.

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