Kategori ağacında gez

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description still contributes useful context on result shape (product count per node, category slug) and tree scale. It doesn't warn about response size or pagination when browsing a node with thousands of sub-categories, which is the main unclosed loop for a large read.

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?

Three sentences with zero filler; the mode split is front-loaded immediately after the scope statement, and the return-value hint sits last where it is most useful. Nothing repeats the schema or annotations.

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 read-only, three-parameter browsing tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers what it returns and how to traverse. The one real omission is guidance on result volume or pagination when a top-level category expands to thousands of children.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description meaningfully adds what changes behaviorally when 'category' is supplied versus omitted, and tells the agent the returned slug is the preferred input form elsewhere. It adds no detail on 'depth' or 'language', though the schema documents those adequately.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Browse the Özdisan category tree') and quantifies scale (5 main groups → thousands of sub-categories, ~1M products). It also states the two operating modes (with/without 'category'). However, it never contrasts itself with the closest sibling, search_categories, so an agent still has to guess which entry point to use.

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?

It clearly states the call pattern: omit 'category' to get top-level groups, supply one to drill into sub-categories, and that returned slugs are reusable in other tools. It gives no explicit exclusions or guidance on when search_categories is the better choice, so it stops short of full when/when-not coverage.

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