get_browser_tree

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true (safe read) and openWorldHint=true (output variability). The description adds behavioral context that the tool returns a shallow listing (no deep hierarchy). While it doesn't detail output format, the presence of an output schema compensates. No contradiction with annotations.

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 extremely concise with two sentences and a list of parameter values. It front-loads the purpose, includes a crucial NOTE, and uses no unnecessary words.

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 tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, annotations present, output schema provided), the description fully covers purpose, usage boundaries, parameter semantics, and behavioral traits. It is complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 0% (no parameter descriptions), but the description enumerates all possible values for 'category_type' (all, instruments, sounds, drums, audio_effects, midi_effects), adding critical meaning beyond the schema's generic string type with default. This fully compensates for the lack of schema 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 lists the browser's top-level categories and immediate entries, with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting it returns a shallow listing, and mentions alternatives like get_browser_items_at_path for deep hierarchy and search_browser for known names.

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 states when to use this tool (for shallow listing) and when to use alternative tools (get_browser_items_at_path for deeper drill-down, search_browser when you know a name). This provides clear usage context and exclusions.

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