browse_category

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits: it works by fetching a batch of recent events and collecting distinct subcategories from metadata. It also warns about a limitation: 'Note: subcategories with no events in the sampled batch may not appear.' This transparency is helpful, though it doesn't explicitly state that the operation is read-only or discuss authentication requirements. With no annotations to contradict, this is strong.

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?

Every sentence serves a purpose: first sentence states the function, second explains the mechanism, third gives usage guidance, and fourth warns about a limitation. There is no wasted text, and the structure is logical, front-loading the core purpose.

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 that an output schema exists (so return values are covered), the description provides sufficient context for a tool with two optional parameters. It explains the navigation pattern, limitations, and relationship to sibling tools. No obvious gaps remain.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the usage pattern (starting at root 0), but it does not provide additional details about the parameters beyond what the schema already describes (e.g., category_id default 0, instance as named Indico instance). Thus, it meets but does not exceed expectations.

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 starts with a clear statement: 'List the direct subcategories of an Indico category, with event counts.' It uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('subcategories'), and the mention of 'direct subcategories' differentiates it from sibling tools like search_category_events (which handles events) and list_category_info (which likely provides category metadata).

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 tells when to use the tool: 'Use this to navigate the category hierarchy: start at the root (0), pick a subcategory, call browse_category again on that ID, and so on until you find the right leaf category to pass to search_category_events or get_category_contributions.' It also notes that it's a reliable fallback when the REST API is unavailable, providing clear context and alternatives.

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