browse_collection_tree

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does add valuable details: deterministic ordering (alphabetical by name, nodeId tie-breaker) and the optional enrichment of counts. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, any error conditions, rate limits, or the behavior of maxResults and outputFormat. This is a moderate level of transparency, leaving room for improvement.

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?

The description is well-structured and concise, with the purpose stated upfront, followed by key behavior and usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place; no filler or repetition. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

The tool has five parameters and no output schema, so the description should ideally clarify return structure and edge cases. It explains the depth behavior, ordering, and optional counts, but omits details about output formatting, maxResults limits, and what happens when a collection has no sub-collections. The description is sufficient for basic use but not fully complete for a tool with moderate complexity.

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 60%, meaning the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. Yet the description only repeats what the schema already states for depth and counts, and does not mention maxResults or outputFormat at all. While the nodeId parameter guidance ('pick a Fachportal or Themenseite') is useful, it is also present in the schema. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the input schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Drill into') and resource ('sub-collection tree below a given collection'), clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like get_collection_contents (which likely fetches items) and get_node_details (which likely gets a single node). It also specifies the return type (direct sub-collections at depth=1 or two levels at depth=2), making the purpose unmistakable.

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 provides explicit usage context: 'Use this for guided exploration: pick a Fachportal or Themenseite, then let the user choose a sub-area before fetching individual content items.' This clearly indicates when to use this tool and implies that a subsequent tool (e.g., get_collection_contents) should be used after. It lacks an explicit 'when not to use' statement but is otherwise clear.

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