Browse category

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It implies read-only behavior by stating 'Returns' data, but does not explicitly state that it is safe, idempotent, or has no side effects. No mention of authentication, rate limits, or data mutability. Adequate but not thorough.

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?

Two sentences: first sentence states purpose and output, second sentence gives critical usage guidance. No redundant words. Front-loaded with key information. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (2 params, no output schema, no nested objects), the description covers the main points: what it does, what it returns, and prerequisite. However, it does not mention the limit parameter or pagination behavior, and could clarify that the output is a list. Nearly complete.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning for parameters beyond what the schema already provides. The schema describes 'category slug' and 'limit', and the description only mentions 'category slugs' in the usage guideline, not adding new semantics.

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 clearly states the verb 'Browse' and the resource 'tools in a Terminal Trove category'. It lists the returned fields (slug, name, URL, description), making it specific. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings like search_tools, which might also return tools but with different criteria.

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 guidance to 'Use list_categories first to discover valid category slugs', which is helpful for proper usage. It implies when to use this tool versus list_categories, but lacks guidance on when not to use it relative to other siblings like search_tools or search_catalog.

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