get_browser_tree

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 conveys that the tool performs a read-only hierarchical lookup and returns top-level categories, but it doesn't elaborate on request behavior, potential permissions, or response characteristics. The listed categories add context, but the description is sparse on non-obvious behavioral traits.

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 consists of two purposeful sentences. It is front-loaded with the primary action and parameter values, followed by a directive to a sibling tool. No redundant or filler content exists.

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?

The simplicity of the tool and the presence of an output schema reduce the burden on the description. It adequately states the tool's scope and points to the next step. However, the lack of parameter semantics leaves a noticeable gap for an agent deciding how to invoke it correctly. Completeness is acceptable but not outstanding.

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 0%, and the description fails to explain the 'category_type' parameter's role. It only lists the category values as the tree's content, not how the parameter filters or selects them. The agent cannot infer whether to pass a category name or what the default 'all' means for the result. The description does not compensate for the schema's lack of parameter descriptions.

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's function with a specific verb 'Get' and a defined resource 'top-level browser categories', listing the exact category names. This distinguishes it from sibling tools, especially get_browser_items_at_path, which is explicitly mentioned. Purpose is unmistakable.

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 explicitly directs when to use an alternative: 'Use get_browser_items_at_path to drill in and find loadable URIs.' This provides clear guidance on when this tool is appropriate (top-level browsing) and when to switch to a sibling, satisfying the 'when-not' and 'alternatives' criteria.

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