Categories

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so safety needs no restating. The description usefully adds the hierarchical drill-down behavior and mentions brand pages appearing below categories, but says nothing about recursion depth limits, result-set size, or what happens with an invalid path.

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?

Two sentences with zero filler; the identity of the output ('`path` values') comes first and the iterative usage pattern follows. Nothing needs trimming or reordering.

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?

For a single-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what it returns, how to call it, and how to walk the hierarchy. The only real gap is whether traversal bottoms out at the subcategory/brand-page level or continues deeper.

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 `parent` property already documents the empty-string/null top-level case with an example. The description adds a little meaning by implying the parent value must be a path previously returned by this same tool, but it repeats the schema's own 'no argument' semantics rather than extending them. Baseline 3 is 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 verb and resource ('List Snapp! Shop categories') and specifies the returned shape as `path` values, explicitly tying that output to the sibling ss_category. An agent can distinguish this from ss_search, ss_suggest, and ss_filters without reading any 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?

Gives an explicit call pattern: invoke with no argument for top-level, then again with a returned path for subcategories and brand pages. This implicitly sequences the tool before ss_category, though it never states exclusions (e.g., don't use this to search by keyword), so routing is clear but not fully disambiguated from all siblings.

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