icf_browse_category

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the return is an 'Overview of the category/sub-chapter with child codes', which is transparent about the output. It does not discuss error handling or performance, but the behavior is clear for a read-only browse.

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 well-structured with a purpose sentence, a list of accepted inputs, and a brief return statement. Each line adds value with no unnecessary repetition, making it efficient for an AI agent to parse.

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?

Given the simple parameter and the presence of an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description covers all necessary contextual information: what to input, what format, and what to expect. It is complete for a straightforward browse tool without needing to detail return structure.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the tool description fully explains the single parameter 'category' with specific examples and formats (component letter or sub-chapter code). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's bare type definition.

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 'browse' and the resource 'ICF category or sub-chapter', with explicit examples of accepted codes. It distinguishes from sibling tools like icf_get_children or icf_search by focusing on browsing an overview rather than retrieving specific details.

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?

The description provides clear examples of valid inputs (top-level components and sub-chapter codes), which implies when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare to alternatives like icf_get_children for code details.

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