remarkable_browse

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: the three modes, results included (names, types, dates, tags), and the note about REMARKABLE_ROOT_PATH restricting access. No contradictions with annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint).

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 well-structured with sections (usecase, instructions, parameters, examples), each sentence adds value, and it is front-loaded with the core use case. No unnecessary words.

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 3 optional parameters, an output schema, and annotations covering read-only behavior, the description is complete. It covers all modes, path restrictions, and examples. No missing information that would hinder tool selection or invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter's purpose (path for folder, query for search, tags for filtering), their defaults, and how they interact. Examples illustrate usage clearly.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: 'Browse your reMarkable library or search for documents.' It details three modes (browse, search, filter by tags) and provides clear examples, effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like remarkable_search.

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 explicit instructions for when to use each mode (browse, search, filter), includes a note about the REMARKABLE_ROOT_PATH configuration, and gives examples. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool remarkable_search, which might lead to confusion about which search tool to use.

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