Browse Iceberg Java API

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds minor context by noting the index is 'complete published' and filters are exact, but it does not disclose additional behavioral details like pagination behavior or response structure beyond what annotations and schema already provide.

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 that front-loads the primary action and resource, then immediately mentions the key filters. There is no wasted wording, and it is appropriately short for an API browse tool.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering safety, the description is largely complete for a read-only browse operation. It clearly states the resource and filters, though it could have been more complete with an explicit usage note contrasting it against iceberg_api_search or iceberg_api_get_type.

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 83%, and the schema already documents kind, prefix, package_name, version, and cursor. The description's mention of 'package and label-prefix filters' aligns with package_name and prefix parameters but does not add additional semantic detail beyond what the schema already states.

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 the specific verb 'Browse' with a clear resource: the complete published package, type, or member index. The mention of exact package and label-prefix filters distinguishes this from sibling tools like search or get by emphasizing it covers the full index rather than specific queries.

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 through 'complete published index' and 'filters', suggesting it is for browsing the full index rather than targeted search, but it never explicitly states when to choose this tool over alternatives. No exclusion criteria or direct comparison to siblings is provided.

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