browse_directories

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 disclosing side effects and constraints. The verb 'explore' suggests a non-mutating browse operation, but the description does not explicitly say it is read-only, whether subdirectories are recursed, or whether authentication or special access is required. This is 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded French sentence with no redundant clauses. Every word contributes to identifying the action and target. It is appropriately sized for such a simple tool, even though it sacrifices some detail for brevity.

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?

The output schema reduces the need to describe return values, and the tool itself is simple with only one optional parameter. However, the missing path semantics and the lack of guidance against similar sibling tools leave an agent to infer important invocation details. The 'vault picker' hint provides orientation, so the description is minimally complete but not fully self-sufficient.

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 has one parameter, 'path', with no description and 0% schema coverage. The tool description at least implies that the path refers to a server-side directory, but it does not clarify the expected format, whether an empty string means the root or current directory, or how traversal should be expressed. The compensation is minimal.

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 names a specific verb ('explore') and a clear resource ('server-side folders'), with a parenthetical purpose hint ('vault picker'). It is not a tautology and is understandable, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tool 'list_folders', which appears to serve a similar listing role.

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 phrase 'vault picker' implies a usage context: browsing server-side folders while choosing a vault location. However, the description does not state when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor does it provide any exclusions or prerequisites. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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