Get Subcat With Depth

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses recursion and the depth ceiling (1-5), but says nothing about read-only nature, cost/performance of deep recursion, output shape, or failure behavior for missing categories.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the recursion constraint leads. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than tightness.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description is the only place return shape, read-only semantics, and the effect of lang/replacement could be explained, and it covers none of them. For a four-parameter recursive traversal tool this leaves meaningful gaps.

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 100%, so all four parameters (lang, depth, catname, replacement) are already documented in the schema. The description restates only the depth range, adding no syntax or format meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the 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 (collect) and resource (subcategories) plus the distinguishing recursion trait, so the agent knows it walks a category tree rather than returning a flat list. However, it never distinguishes itself from siblings like get_subcat_table or get_subcat_multiple, so an agent must guess which subcategory tool applies.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no prerequisites (e.g., that a valid catname and language wiki must exist). The only implicit signal is the recursion semantics.

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