get_browser_items_at_path

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, limitations, or required permissions. It only states the basic function, leaving the agent without safety or context information.

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 fairly concise, using two sentences to convey the purpose and usage hints. It is front-loaded with the action. Minor improvement could be structuring the path options more clearly.

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 a single parameter and an output schema (not shown), the description is adequately complete. It explains path options and prerequisite tool usage, though it could mention the item types returned.

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 has no description for the 'path' parameter, but the tool description adds meaning by explaining valid path formats (top-level category or bare subcategory) with examples. This compensates well for the lack of schema coverage.

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 action (list items) and the resource (browser path). It provides path format examples, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_browser_tree, though it hints at the relationship.

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 advises using get_browser_tree first to discover categories, which is good guidance. It does not specify when not to use the tool, but the context is clear enough for selection.

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