search_browser_items

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context by saying the search is bounded to a subtree and returns load_browser_item-compatible paths. It does not explain traversal behavior, matching semantics beyond the schema's case-insensitivity, or the no-results case.

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?

One sentence with no filler; the verb and scope are front-loaded and the output is named immediately. It is as concise as a definition can be while still stating the essential deliverable.

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?

The description gives the essential purpose and output compatibility, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, with five parameters, no output schema, and no mention of defaults or limit/maxDepth behavior, an agent must infer some invocation details. It is adequate but not fully self-contained.

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 documents root, query, and path, and the description adds the general notion of a bounded subtree and path compatibility. However, it does not explain the undocumented limit and maxDepth parameters beyond their numeric bounds, and schema coverage is only 60%, so the description only partially compensates for the gap.

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 a specific verb ('Search') with a bounded resource ('bounded subtree of Live's browser') and states the deliverable ('return exact paths usable by load_browser_item'). This clearly conveys what the tool does and distinguishes it from metadata-only or browse siblings without opening the schema.

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 context for use is implied: use this when you need exact browser paths to load an item within a bounded subtree. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives such as get_browser_items or search_browser_item_metadata, nor does it state when not to use this tool. No exclusions or conditions are given.

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