Browse tool catalog

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the useful fact that the catalog is 'Free' and that output varies by argument tier, but says nothing about result size, pagination, or truncation for a full catalog.

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?

Telegraphic but front-loaded: cost, scope, then the argument-to-output mapping. Every token carries information and there is no filler.

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 2-param read-only browser with no output schema, the mode routing is well covered, but the description never defines what a 'family' is, how many families/tools exist, or what 'detail' contains, leaving an agent to discover scale and response shape by trial.

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% and the schema descriptions ('Tool name → detail.', 'Family id → its tools.') mirror the description almost verbatim, so the description adds no meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific resource (full tool catalog) and enumerates the three routing modes (no args → families, family → tools, tool → detail), which lets an agent predict the response shape. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling use_tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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 mode table implies usage (call with no args to discover, then drill down with family or tool), but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over directly calling use_tool or the other siblings, and no prerequisite/ordering statement.

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