origin_browse_knowledge

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates read-only behavior ('List' and 'browse') but does not disclose edge cases (e.g., invalid path) or failure modes. Acceptable for a listing tool but lacks depth.

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 10-word sentence that immediately conveys the purpose without wasted words. It is front-loaded with the primary action and succinctly covers both listing and browsing modes.

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 the high schema coverage and the presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently explains the tool's core functionality. It could mention result format or pagination, but the output schema likely covers that. Minor omission but not critical.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter having a descriptive comment. The tool description adds context about slash-delimited paths, but the schema already explains the 'topic' parameter similarly. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description adds marginal value over the schema.

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 clearly states the tool lists knowledge collections or browses a collection by slash-delimited path. It uses a specific verb ('List' and 'browse') and resource ('knowledge collections'), and implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like origin_query_knowledge which queries content.

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 implies usage: omit collection to list collections, provide collection to browse. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or mention alternatives among siblings, leaving some ambiguity for complex scenarios.

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