get_browser_tree

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the operation and parameter options, omitting details like read-only nature, authentication requirements, or any side effects. The return format is not mentioned.

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 extremely concise: one sentence for purpose followed by a clear parameter list. Every element is purposeful and front-loaded, with no redundancy or filler.

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, but the description lacks explanation of the output format (the tree structure). Without an output schema, the agent might not know what to expect. Additionally, it does not differentiate itself from similar browser tools, leaving some context incomplete.

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?

Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description adds crucial value by listing all valid enum values for 'category_type': 'all', 'instruments', 'sounds', 'drums', 'audio_effects', 'midi_effects'. This goes beyond the schema's simple 'string' type. The common 'ctx' parameter is not described but is standard.

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 clearly states the verb 'get' and the resource 'hierarchical tree of browser categories' from Ableton. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools which focus on specific tracks, clips, or devices, making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternative browser-related tools like 'get_browser_item' or 'get_browser_items_at_path'. There is no mention of prerequisites or context-specific advice.

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