browse_structure

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the tool returns only hierarchy and no text, but it does not explain behavior around the optional date parameter, what happens when part is omitted, or any edge cases.

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 a single focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, and every word adds meaning.

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 is simple and has an output schema, but with no annotations and no parameter descriptions, the description should provide more context about the date parameter and intended usage. It is minimally viable but has clear 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 description coverage is 0%, and the description only implicitly covers 'title' and 'part'. The 'date' parameter is completely undocumented in both the schema and the description, so the description only partially compensates for the lack of parameter documentation.

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 ('Return'), names the resource ('CFR hierarchy'), and states the input scope ('for a title (or one part)') and output scope ('without any text'). This clearly differentiates the tool from siblings like search_regulations and lookup_citation, which imply text-oriented operations.

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 conveys the core use case—browsing the CFR hierarchy without content—and implies when it is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use this tool, leaving usage largely to inference from sibling names.

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