get_browser_tree

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It implies a read-only operation ('Get') but does not mention any side effects, prerequisites, or limitations. No additional context like performance or error behavior is provided.

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 highly concise, consisting of a single purpose statement followed by a short parameter list. It is front-loaded with the core action and avoids unnecessary detail.

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 one-parameter read tool, the description covers the essential purpose and parameter values. However, it lacks explicit details about the return structure beyond 'hierarchical tree,' which could be inferred but is not fully described.

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 schema only provides a default value and no description, but the tool description lists all allowed values ('all', 'instruments', 'sounds', 'drums', 'audio_effects', 'midi_effects') and explains that category_type is the 'Type of categories to get.' This adds meaningful information beyond the 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 ('Get') and resource ('hierarchical tree of browser categories'), making it distinct from sibling tools like get_browser_items_at_path. It clearly states the tool's function in one sentence.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as browse_path or search_browser. The description only states what it does, not when it should be preferred over other browser-related tools.

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