Browse page tree

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the one-level-at-a-time behavior and that parent must be a folder item id, which is useful. However, it does not mention other behavioral aspects such as mode filtering, the effect of includeAncestors, or pagination, leaving gaps.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action and key behavior. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. The description covers the core hierarchical browsing concept and the parent behavior, but it leaves mode and includeAncestors unexplained. For a 4-parameter tool, this is a noticeable gap, making it adequate but not complete.

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 only 25% (only parent has a description). The tool description adds the meaning that parent must be a folder item id, but it does not explain mode, locale, or includeAncestors. Since the description must compensate for low schema coverage, it is insufficient.

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 tool browses the page/folder hierarchy one level at a time, using the specific verb 'browse' and identifying the resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_pages by emphasizing the hierarchical, level-by-level navigation.

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 clear usage context: omit parent for the root level, pass a folder item id to descend. This implies when to use the tool, but it does not explicitly exclude or compare to alternatives like list_pages or search_pages, so it is clear but lacks direct exclusions.

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