browse_tree

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the return shape and framing as an entry point, but says nothing beyond the schema about the 60-second cache, traversal cost of depth, or result size for large worlds.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and output shape and closed with the orienting purpose. No filler and nothing repeated from annotations or the schema.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing returns – and it does, listing ids, icons, tags and child counts from an indented outline. Complete enough for an agent to call it correctly, with only minor gaps around default depth behaviour and output size on large worlds.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema (it does not explain default depth of 2, the effect of parent scope, or the refresh cache behaviour) – it only describes the visible output fields.

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 states a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('the resource tree / the world's wiki hierarchy') and additionally describes the output form: an indented outline with ids, icons, tags and child counts. That is far more informative than a tautology, though it does not explicitly name a sibling it differs from (e.g. get_resource or search).

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?

'Start here to see how a world is organized' positions the tool as an orientation/entry point, which is implied usage guidance. However, no alternative is named and no condition for choosing browse_tree over get_resource or search is given, so the agent must infer when this is preferable.

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