browse_children

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered externally. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context: the traversal is strictly one level down and the hierarchy ordering. It stops short of describing pagination or return shape, but the added structural domain knowledge is substantive.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then layered with hierarchy context and use cases. Every sentence contributes routing or domain value, though the example clauses in the third sentence run slightly long for a three-parameter read tool.

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?

For a paginated read tool with no output schema, the description conveys what is returned (immediate children) and the traversal model. Pagination behavior lives in the schema, so its absence in prose is acceptable; the definition is complete enough for correct invocation.

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% (page, limit, and parent_naid are all documented), so the schema already carries parameter meaning. The description reinforces parent_naid implicitly via 'a record's immediate children' but adds no syntax or format details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List a record's immediate children, one level down the hierarchy') and immediately situates it within the Catalog's record group/series/file unit/item nesting. It explicitly distinguishes itself from search-based siblings by noting 'searching finds a node; this walks down from it.'

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?

Gives concrete when-to-use scenarios ('get from a series you trust to the file unit for one person', 'find out what else sits alongside a file you already have') and names the alternative for the inverse operation, noting ancestors 'come back from get_record.' Nothing is left to inference.

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