browse_collection

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the tool as a 'browse' operation, which implies read-only access, but doesn't explicitly state whether it's safe, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output format looks like. The mention of 'content types' adds some context, but critical behavioral traits like pagination, error handling, or data freshness are missing.

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 reasonably concise with three sentences. The first sentence clearly states the purpose, the second enumerates content types, and the third clarifies the 'personas' type. There's no wasted text, and it's front-loaded with the core functionality. However, the second sentence could be slightly more streamlined by integrating the content type list more seamlessly.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is partially complete. It covers the purpose and parameters adequately but lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., output format, error cases) and usage differentiation from siblings. Without annotations or output schema, more context on what the tool returns and how to interpret results would improve completeness.

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 has 100% description coverage, with clear parameter definitions (section and type). The description adds marginal value by listing examples of content types (personas, skills, agents, templates) and clarifying that 'personas' is a specific type, but doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or constraints beyond what's in the schema. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 purpose: 'Browse content from the DollhouseMCP collection by section and content type.' It specifies the verb ('browse'), resource ('content from the DollhouseMCP collection'), and key parameters (section and content type). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_collection' or 'get_collection_content', which likely have overlapping functionality.

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 some implied usage context by listing content types (personas, skills, agents, templates) and clarifying that 'personas' refers to a specific type. It also hints at parameter usage (e.g., type is only used when section is 'library'). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_collection' or 'get_collection_content', and doesn't mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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