browse_erp_page

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions return content (title, text, tables, links), but omits important details such as authentication requirements (given sibling erp_login), rate limits, or potential errors. This leaves the agent with incomplete behavioral context.

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 with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and resource, then lists return content efficiently. Perfectly concise for the information provided.

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 presence of many sibling tools for specific pages, the description does not explain why one would use this generic browse over those tools. It also lacks mention of prerequisites (e.g., login) and does not address edge cases. The output schema exists, which explains return values, but the description could be more complete for a tool with many related alternatives.

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 schema provides zero description for the single 'path' parameter. The description compensates by clarifying acceptable formats ('Academic/notices.htm' or full URL), adding meaningful guidance beyond the schema. However, it does not specify whether the path is relative to a base URL or if external URLs are allowed.

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'), the resource ('any ERP page'), and provides examples of valid paths. It distinguishes from siblings like 'search_erp_pages' which is a search tool, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies use for browsing generic ERP pages, but does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus specific page tools (e.g., get_academic_notices). No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, leaving the agent uncertain about tool selection.

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