get_browser_tree

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only or has side effects, the output format beyond 'hierarchical tree', or any rate limits or telemetry use (though 'user_prompt' parameter suggests telemetry). It lacks information on what happens with invalid category_type or if the tree includes specific details. The description is minimal and does not provide behavioral context beyond the basic function.

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 concise and includes a parameters list, which helps structure. The core function is stated up front, and the parameter details follow. However, the parameter list is redundant with the schema, and the description could be more concise while adding more value. It's structured but not particularly efficient.

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 there is an output schema (of unknown content), the description doesn't need to explain the return structure fullyhol, but it doesn't mention any output details either. The tool involves multiple category types and likely nested structures, but the description lacks specifics on usage constraints, error handling, or how the hierarchy is organized. It is adequate for a basic call but incomplete for a tool with this complexity and no annotations.

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 0%, so the schema provides no descriptions for the parameters. The description does list the parameters and gives an example list for category_type, which adds some value over the schema. However, it doesn't explain the semantics of user_prompt beyond 'for telemetry', which is vague, nor does it clarify the default behavior or what 'all' means in context. It partially compensates but leaves several parameters under-explained.

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 that the tool gets a hierarchical tree of browser categories from Ableton, which is clear and specific. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling get_browser_items_at_path, which may also return browser hierarchy. The description names the resource (browser categories) and the verb (get), but the differentiation is weak, leaving some ambiguity.

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 lists the category_type parameter with options, which implies when to use different subtypes. It doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_browser_items_at_path or get_session_info; the guidance is implied but not explicit. It doesn't mention any exclusions or prerequisites, so the guidance is moderate.

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