typst_browse

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the output format ('hierarchical tree') but doesn't describe what the tree contains, how it's structured, whether it's read-only, or any performance considerations like rate limits or data size. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely returns complex documentation data.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any redundant information. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with every word contributing to understanding the tool's function.

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 complexity of browsing documentation as a hierarchical tree, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tree output looks like, how to interpret it, or any behavioral traits, making it inadequate for an agent to use the tool effectively without trial and error.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters ('depth' and 'sub_directory') with descriptions and defaults. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 action ('browse') and resource ('Typst documentation structure') with the specific format 'as a hierarchical tree', which distinguishes it from typical file browsing. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'typst_read' or 'typst_search' in terms of purpose.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'typst_read' or 'typst_search'. It lacks context about use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on tool names alone.

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