browse_docs_by_category

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior — that traversal is recursive into nested subcategories — but says nothing about result size, depth limits, or pagination for large trees, which matters for a recursive enumeration.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and the return contents come first. Slightly dense with the trailing "including nested subcategories" clause, but nothing is wasted.

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?

A one-parameter read tool with an output schema and full param coverage needs little more than this. The main omission is any hint about scale or depth of the recursive listing, which would help an agent decide whether to browse or search.

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% and the single parameter already carries example paths ("forms", "forms/field-types"). The description adds no path syntax, root/empty-string convention, or error behavior beyond what the schema states, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a concrete verb and resource ("Browse a category") and specifies the payload: subcategory paths plus every article, including nested ones. That recursion detail is what distinguishes it from a flat catalog lister like list_categories, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated — the agent can infer it should call this to enumerate a category's contents, but the description never says when to prefer it over search_docs, list_docs, list_categories, or get_doc_structure, nor does it state any prerequisites.

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