get_browser_tree

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the tool returns a hierarchical tree, but does not disclose any behavioral traits like read-only safety, required permissions, or rate limits. However, the action is inherently a read, so the disclosure is minimally acceptable.

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: one for purpose and one listing parameters. It is front-loaded and contains no superfluous words.

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 output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. For a simple retrieval tool with one optional parameter, the description covers the main purpose and parameter semantics. No mention of pagination or limits, but likely unnecessary.

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 only has a default value and no enum, so the description adds value by listing the allowed values for 'category_type' (all, instruments, sounds, etc.), which is not present in the schema. Schema coverage is 0%, so description compensates well.

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 'Get' and the resource 'browser categories', and specifies the output as a 'hierarchical tree'. This distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'get_browser_items_at_path' which likely retrieves items within a category, not the hierarchical 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_browser_items_at_path'. It mentions parameters but no context about usage scenarios, such as when to fetch the full tree vs specific subcategories.

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