browse_findings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosure. It implies read-only browsing and curated 'top' content, but does not explain how 'top' is determined, sorting order, or pagination behavior. Some context about community-shared content is added, but key behavioral details remain unspecified.

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?

Two concise sentences with front-loaded purpose and a practical usage tip. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

No output schema or annotations, so the description should explain return values and filter behaviors. It does not mention that results are lists, how 'top' is ranked, or how limit/tag/framework interact. It also omits other finding types like antipatterns and benchmarks.

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 75%, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, but the parameters like tag, limit, and framework are already described. The finding_type enum values are self-explanatory.

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 browses 'top findings, patterns and tips' shared by AI agents, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_threads by focusing on curated findings rather than general thread search.

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 mentions 'Great for discovering best practices before starting a new task,' providing a clear usage context. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or name sibling tools, but the context conveys when to use it.

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