sync_browser

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

No annotations are provided, so description is the sole source. It only states the action without disclosing behavioral details like whether the Content Browser must be open, what happens if the asset is not found, or if it selects the asset. Very limited transparency beyond the basic purpose.

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?

A single concise sentence with no extraneous words. Every word earns its place. Optimal size for the described action.

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 tool has one parameter and a presumably simple action, the description is minimally viable. However, it lacks details like whether it works on all asset types, handling of subfolders, or any side effects. The presence of an output schema might compensate but is not available. Could be more complete for a navigation tool.

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 0% for the single parameter, but the description implies 'asset_path' is the path to the asset, adding meaning beyond the schema's bare type declaration. However, it does not specify path format (e.g., full path or relative) or validation rules. Adequate but minimal compensation.

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 specific verbs 'Navigate' and 'show' with a clear resource 'Content Browser' and 'specific asset'. It effectively distinguishes from siblings like 'open_asset' (which likely opens for editing) and 'find_assets' (which searches).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not specify scenarios where navigating to show is preferred over opening or finding assets. Missing explicit context or exclusions.

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