Category tree

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds valuable behavioral context: ids are live tree node ids rather than a fixed enum, the full tree size/payload is significant, and a compact projection is returned by default.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence earns its place: what it returns, how to control scope, and how the output is consumed downstream. No filler or repetition.

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 simple read-only tree tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains the root, top-level children, dynamic ids, depth control, payload size, and downstream consumers. It does not describe the exact node shape of the returned tree, but the compact-vs-raw distinction and downstream usage compensate.

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?

The input schema already covers all 3 parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining that rootId id 1 is the catalog root, that top-level segment ids are dynamic real node ids, and that depth should be kept small because the full tree is ~618 nodes / 1 MB, which supplements the schema's parameter docs.

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 action ('Return the oskelly.ru category tree') and clearly identifies the resource and scope, including the root node and four top-level segments. It also distinguishes this tool from siblings by tying it to category id feeding for oskelly_search_products.

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 gives practical usage guidance: use rootId to zoom into a subtree, keep depth small due to the ~618-node/1MB full tree, and use returned ids as inputs to oskelly_search_products. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the intended context and downstream use are clear.

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