browse

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden; "List" at least signals a read-only operation and the IIIF/hierarchy framing explains the shape of the traversal. It says nothing about pagination, ordering, or what a leaf unit returns, and an output schema exists, which covers return values but not these behavioral traits.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then scope expansion, then the parameter hint. The "fonds -> series -> volumes" notation is dense but earns its space by conveying the hierarchy in a few tokens.

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 one-parameter listing tool with an output schema, the description covers what it returns conceptually (children/next level), which archives it applies to, and where the id comes from. Remaining gaps around pagination and terminal-level behavior are minor given the output schema.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains that archive_id is the identifier obtained from search_records or parish_archive. That provenance is genuine added meaning beyond a bare string parameter, though the expected format is not shown.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List the children of any Riksarkivet archive unit") and clarifies the hierarchy traversed (fonds -> series -> volumes). It implicitly separates itself from search_records/parish_archive (which supply the id) and from volume_pages, though the contrast with volume_pages is never made explicit.

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?

Gives clear context: use it for hierarchical browsing including non-church material (courts, military rolls, maps), and points to search_records or parish_archive as the source of archive_id. It stops short of stating when not to use it, e.g. at the page level where volume_pages applies.

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