zim_browse

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: it explains the pagination vs. walk behavior, response types, error handling (invalid_mode, empty namespace, unknown namespace with soft reject), and the effect of include_assets. It even notes that walk rejects offset. This is exceptionally transparent for a read-only browse operation.

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 well-structured with clear sections (intro, EXTRACT, ALIASES, PARAMETERS, RESPONSE, ERRORS). It is detailed but every sentence adds value—no fluff. The critical decision (mode selection) is front-loaded, and parameter explanations are concise and complete.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers all necessary aspects: usage intent, parameter semantics, response format, error cases, and edge behaviors (e.g., walk rejecting offset, unknown namespace soft reject). An agent can confidently call this tool correctly without additional context.

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 0% description coverage, so the description completely compensates by explaining each parameter: zim_file_path, namespace, mode, cursor, limit, offset, and include_assets. It clarifies defaults, allowed ranges, and the meaning of include_assets for binary retrieval. This far exceeds the structured 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 states a specific verb ('Browse') and resource ('ZIM archive's namespace'), and clarifies the two modes (paginated vs. walk). It differentiates from siblings by listing aliases and directing routing through this tool, making it unmistakable what operation this performs.

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?

It gives explicit guidance on choosing between 'page' and 'walk' modes with examples ('Most read-the-table-of-contents-style requests are mode=page; only full-enumeration tasks need mode=walk'). However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like zim_search or zim_query, leaving some ambiguity about when to prefer this tool over them, though the aliases help.

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