clio_browse

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only states the basic action. It does not disclose behavior for edge cases such as missing parameters, precedence between matter_id and parent_folder_id, pagination via limit, or output format. This leaves significant ambiguity for an agent.

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 sentence that is direct and front-loaded, with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for its purpose.

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 description omits essential context such as what happens when no parameters are supplied, whether listing is recursive, and what the response structure looks like. With no output schema or annotations, this is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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 description references 'matter' and 'parent folder', adding context to matter_id and parent_folder_id. However, it does not explain the 'limit' parameter, and since schema description coverage is 0%, the description fails to fully compensate for the missing documentation of all parameters.

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 uses the verb 'List' and specifies the resources 'folders and documents' with a clear scope 'under a matter (or a parent folder)'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like clio_get_document or clio_find_matters, making the purpose immediately clear.

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 clearly implies the context of use: browsing the contents of a matter or folder. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use alternatives or any exclusions, so it falls short of a 5 but has clear context.

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