fgis_browse_source

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's burden is lower. It adds the chaining behavior (returned GUID/id for next branch) and specifies current-price stages, which are useful behavioral details that go beyond the annotations. 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?

The description is concise for its density, packing navigation rules, source-specific constraints, and stage lists into a few sentences. It front-loads the core action and then provides necessary details without fluff. Slightly longer than ideal but each clause earns its place.

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 the tool's complexity (9 params, no output schema), the description covers the key usage pattern and parameter semantics. It lacks explicit details on pagination semantics, archive behavior, or response structure, but the core goal of browsing a tree is well-supported. An agent could make a correct first call and know how to continue.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter meaning. It explains parent, level, section (with TER ranges), and the keys accepted in source_params. It does not explicitly cover page/limit/offset/archive, but those are standard pagination and archival flags that an agent can infer. This is a strong compensation for an undocumented schema.

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 a specific verb ('Navigate') and resource ('named FGIS source tree'), and explains the recursive navigation pattern using returned GUID/id as parent. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like fgis_catalog or fgis_search_norms, relying on the term 'browse' to imply hierarchical traversal.

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 gives direct usage instructions: 'Use returned GUID/id as parent and level for next branch.' It also provides source-specific conditions ('registry uses section + page; TER sections are 6 and 7') and lists supported source_params keys. While it doesn't state when NOT to use this tool versus alternatives, the context is sufficient for an agent to apply it correctly.

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