akb_browse

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

With no annotations, the description effectively communicates the read-only browsing behavior, hierarchical structure, and filtering options. It also reveals that each item carries a canonical URI for subsequent operations. No destructive or hidden side effects are indicated.

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 only three sentences, with the most critical information in the first sentence. It is front-loaded, no superfluous words, and every sentence adds value.

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 4 parameters (all well-described), no output schema, and moderate complexity, the description covers browsing behavior, filters, and linkage to other tools. It lacks explicit explanation of the return format, but mentions 'Each item carries its canonical uri', which is sufficient.

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 coverage is 100% (all parameters have descriptions), and the description adds extra value by explaining how 'collection' affects browsing ('omit for top-level'), the meaning of depth values, and the content_type filter. This goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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 clearly identifies the action (Browse), the resource (vault content), and distinguishes between top-level and collection browsing. It also mentions the canonical URI that links to sibling tools, making it highly specific and distinguishable.

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 explains when to use without collection (top-level) and with collection (inside it), and mentions filters (depth, content_type). However, it does not explicitly state alternatives or when not to use this tool, though the context of sibling tools like akb_search is implied.

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