Browse categories

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context beyond that — the tree's size (236 nodes) and depth (up to 4 levels) — which helps the agent anticipate the result set, though pagination/limit behavior is left to the schema.

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?

Front-loaded with what the tool returns, then the usage pointer. Two compact sentences with little waste; the parenthetical slug examples add value but are the only slightly list-heavy part.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description usefully lists the returned fields itself. For a read-only browse tool whose annotations already carry the safety profile, this is essentially complete, with only minor gaps around result ordering or pagination.

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 description coverage is 100%, so limit, query and parent are already fully documented in the schema. The description contributes nothing extra about parameter syntax or formats, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 specific resource — the Divar category tree — and enumerates what each node carries (slug, Persian name, path, leaf flag). It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming dv_search as the consumer of the slugs and dv_filters as the per-category filter tool, so an agent can tell it apart without opening another schema.

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?

Explicitly states the use case: 'Use to find the `category` slug for dv_search and the other tools,' and routes filters to dv_filters. It gives clear context and a named alternative, though it stops short of a full when-not clause (e.g., what to do when the category is already known).

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