Browse library

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

Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds limited value by naming the content types. However, it does not elaborate on filtering behavior or result characteristics beyond the openWorldHint annotation.

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?

Single, concise sentence that conveys the main purpose without unnecessary words. Could be structured with more detail, but efficient for a simple browse tool.

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?

With 5 parameters lacking schema descriptions, the description should provide more context on how to use each parameter. The output schema exists but its content is unknown; description does not compensate for the low parameter documentation.

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 0%. Description mentions 'recipes' and 'packages' which align with include_recipes and include_packages parameters, but does not explain query, tags, or package_dir. Lacks needed context for parameter values.

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?

Description clearly states 'browse' action and specifies resources: built-in/vault recipes and optional local component packages. This distinguishes it from the similar sibling 'browse_vault_library' which may focus only on vault content, though not explicitly differentiated.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'browse_vault_library' or other browsing tools. Does not specify when to include parameters or conditions for use.

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