get_browser_items

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the behavioral constraint that it browses exactly one level (not recursive) and that offset/limit should be supplied together for paging. It doesn't disclose return format or pagination behavior beyond that, but with annotations covering safety, this is adequate.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. The core behavior ('browse one exact level') is front-loaded, and the paging guidance is a single compact second sentence. Every word earns its place.

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 read-only browse tool with annotations covering safety, the description is nearly complete. It explains the scope (one level), the supported roots, and paging behavior. The only minor gap is that it doesn't describe the return shape, but since there's no output schema and the tool is a simple list operation, this is a small omission. The description is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly.

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 50%: 'root' and 'path' have descriptions, while 'limit' and 'offset' only have type/min/max constraints. The description adds meaning by explaining that offset and limit should be supplied together for paging large roots, which is useful. However, it doesn't explain what 'path' means beyond the schema's 'Path below the root' or clarify the relationship between root and path. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema covers half the parameters and the description adds some paging context.

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'), a precise resource ('one exact level of Live's factory, plug-in, Pack, Max for Live, project, or user-content browser'), and a key constraint ('one exact level'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_browser_items, get_factory_browser_items, and get_browser_item_metadata without needing to inspect their schemas.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool: browsing a single level of the browser hierarchy, with the explicit note to supply offset and limit together to page large roots. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the 'one exact level' phrasing implies it's not for recursive search or metadata retrieval, which are covered by siblings.

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