browse_keys

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: results are active key clusters ordered hubs-first then by linked-memory count, and it is index metadata only, not memory content. It omits pagination behavior, default limits, and what occurs for an unknown/empty namespace, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then return shape, then next steps. Nothing is redundant and there is no filler.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must stand alone; it orients the agent well on intent and follow-up calls but leaves parameter behavior (paging, hubs_only) unexplained for a four-parameter tool. Adequate for choosing the tool, incomplete for invoking it precisely.

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, but it never explains limit, offset, hubs_only, or the namespace argument. The phrase 'hubs first' hints at the hubs concept but does not clarify the hubs_only flag or paging semantics, leaving all four parameters undocumented.

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 (browse) and resource (the vocabulary / key clusters of one namespace), and contrasts it with recall by describing itself as the fallback entry point. An agent can distinguish it from recall, read_key and read_memory without opening any 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?

Explicit triggering condition: use it when recall returns no hit or you need an entry point, naming recall as the alternative it complements. It also routes the agent forward with read_key(key_id, query, namespace) and read_memory(memory_id, via_key_id, namespace), so the workflow position is unambiguous.

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