browse_children

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds real domain context beyond that: the four-level Catalog hierarchy (record group > series > file unit > item) and the traversal direction, which tells the agent what 'children' actually returns. It stops short of describing result size or ordering behavior.

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 in the first clause, then supporting context. The illustrative 'one person' example is mildly verbose but still earns its place by anchoring the hierarchy in a real use case.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description gives the agent enough to know what comes back (immediate children, one level) and the hierarchy semantics. Pagination defaults live in the schema, so nothing critical is missing, though return-shape details are left implicit.

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 parent_naid, page, and limit are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail for those parameters, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List a record's immediate children') with the scope qualifier 'one level down the hierarchy,' which immediately separates it from the recursive/ancestor sibling get_record. An agent can distinguish it from search_records without opening any 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?

Explicitly frames the workflow: 'Searching finds a node; this walks down from it,' and names the opposite operation ('A record's own ancestors come back from `get_record`'). Both the when-to-use and the alternative are stated, not implied.

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