commons.browse

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It correctly implies a read-only browse operation but does not explicitly state it is non-destructive, auth requirements, or response format. Adequate but minimal behavioral disclosure.

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 no filler. The first front-loads the purpose and key sorting behavior, the second adds filtering and context. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a browse tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but missing details on return fields or pagination beyond the limit parameter. It provides enough for basic usage but not full 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining sort directions (most valued, newest) and filtering options, clarifying parameter usage beyond the schema definitions.

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 shared knowledge, returns contributions sorted by upvotes or recency, and allows filtering by tags or category. This distinctly sets it apart from sibling tools like commons.contribute or commons.upvote.

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 usage for browsing collective wisdom but does not explicitly mention when to avoid using this tool or alternative tools. The context of being a browse operation is clear, but lacks explicit exclusions.

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