icf_browse_category

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions return of an overview with example codes and chapters, but does not cover error handling, validation of invalid category input, or any other side effects. The read-only nature is implied but not explicit.

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 concise and front-loaded with the tool purpose. It lists categories and then provides Args/Returns sections. Slight verbosity in repeating category details could be integrated, but overall efficient.

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 existence of an output schema (indicated by context) and the simplicity of the tool, the description covers input, output overview, and category semantics adequately. It lacks explicit error handling details but is sufficient for a browse operation.

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 schema shows a single string parameter 'category' with no description or enum. The description compensates fully by specifying allowed values (b, s, d, e) and format ('single letter category code'). Schema coverage is 0%, so the description adds critical meaning.

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 resource 'top-level ICF category', and lists the four specific categories (b, s, d, e). It differentiates from sibling tools like icf_search or icf_get_children by focusing on top-level exploration.

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 implies usage for exploring top-level ICF categories but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like icf_search or icf_get_children. No 'when not to use' guidance is provided.

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