get_category_children

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses read-only nature (no destructive hint), cost (~1 credit/page, ~3s), pagination only when many children, and details the return fields (browseNodeId, hasChild, etc.). It explains that empty parent returns root and hasChild=1 for further drill. No contradictions.

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?

Description is multi-sentence but well-structured with clear sections (purpose, use/don't use, returns, pagination, pairing, cost). It front-loads the core purpose. Could be slightly more concise, but every sentence adds value.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description fully explains the return structure (fields, pagination), how to chain with other tools (e.g., feed browseNodeIdPath back for deeper drill, or to list_category_products), and when to paginate. This is comprehensive for a drill-down tool.

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%, baseline 3. Description adds value with examples for parentBrowseNodeIdPath (single ID vs path), special case for empty root, and pagination behavior (page default 1, size default 10, max 50). While schema already covers types and constraints, description enriches with usage context.

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 starts with a clear verb+resource: '从根节点或任意类目逐级下钻，列出直接子类目' (drill down from root or any category to list direct children). It distinguishes itself from siblings like search_categories (keyword search) and list_category_products (product listing under a category).

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?

Explicit 'Use when' and 'Don't use' sections with concrete examples (e.g., user says X, when doing category map). It also advises against using for keyword-category jumps or for product listing, directing to alternative tools. Pairing with other tools is also described.

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