Browse Tools

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds no behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide (e.g., does not mention pagination, result truncation, or dynamic nature). It merely restates filtering capabilities that are already in the schema.

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 of 10 words, front-loading the key action and scope. Every word is essential; no redundancy or 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 simple browse tool with 4 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and filtering. However, it lacks guidance on output format or pagination behavior, and does not help distinguish from siblings in usage context. The annotations compensate partially for behavioral transparency.

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 100%, with each parameter already documented in the input schema. The description's phrase 'by category or popularity' maps to the category and sort parameters but adds no new meaning or constraints 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?

The description 'Browse skills, plugins, and MCP servers by category or popularity' clearly specifies the verb (browse), the resources (skills, plugins, MCP servers), and the filtering methods (category, popularity). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'search' (likely keyword-based) and 'sources' (likely listing data sources). It follows a 'specific verb+resource' structure.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (search, sources). It lacks 'when not to use' or explicit context for selection. While siblings are named, no comparative guidance is given.

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