browse_waypoints

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds auth context beyond the annotations ('Works without a token') and discloses the stateful, multi-call traversal pattern, which is genuinely useful. It stops short of describing return contents or any throttling.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, followed by the rationale and then the mechanics, with no filler sentences. The prose is slightly literary ('may still be sitting on an image you can browse to') but each sentence contributes actionable information.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden and partially does so by explaining that children contain waypoint_ids used to descend. For a two-parameter, annotation-covered read tool this is nearly complete, though a note on what a leaf page yields would close the loop.

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 both parameters are already fully documented in the schema, including the instruction to take waypoint_id from a previous call's children. The description restates the top-down descent but adds no format, example, or constraint beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 opening sentence gives a specific verb and resource ('Browse a collection's structure') and enumerates the levels involved (volumes, date ranges, films). It implicitly distinguishes itself from the searching siblings by framing itself as the route to material the index missed, so an agent can tell it apart without opening a schema.

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?

It states the selecting condition explicitly: indexing is incomplete, so anything not found via search may still be reachable by browsing. It also gives the call sequence — 'Pass a collection_id to start, then a waypoint_id from the children to descend' — which is exactly how an agent needs to operate this tool.

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