cluster

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that clusters are 'persisted' and rendered from the 'full index' rather than 'recomputing them on demand', indicating a read-only operation on precomputed data. It does not mention potential side effects, authentication, or failure modes, but the core behavior is clear.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core verb and purpose, and every phrase adds value. It avoids fluff and is easy to scan.

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 (2 optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is fairly complete: it states the purpose, the data source, and the behavior. It does not explain the return format in detail, but mentions the key outputs. Minor gaps like error handling or index staleness are not addressed, but for a browsing tool this is acceptable.

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 already documents both parameters (max_depth and max_clusters) with clear descriptions. The tool description does not add additional parameter-level detail, but it does contextually imply they control rendering depth and breadth. Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema carries the load.

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 a specific verb ('Browse') and resource ('codebase by MEANING') and lists concrete outputs ('semantic clusters, subsystem summaries, and related-file neighborhoods'). It also distinguishes itself from directory structure navigation, contrasting with sibling tools like 'tree'.

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 context on when to use the tool: when you want to explore by meaning rather than directory structure. It implies the alternative (use directory structure, e.g., 'tree') but does not explicitly name other tools or state when not to use it. The mention of 'persisted' and 'full index' hints that the index should be built.

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