browse_path

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It states the core action but does not explain side effects (e.g., whether the browser's current location is changed), error behavior (e.g., invalid paths), or the return format. This is a minimal disclosure that leaves the agent uncertain about operational consequences.

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 efficient and well-structured, with a one-sentence purpose statement followed by a concise parameter explanation. It avoids redundancy and front-loads the key action.

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 tool with no output schema, no annotations, and a single parameter, the description remains incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns (the items at the location), whether it mutates browser state, or how it relates to siblings like get_browser_items_at_path. The absence of return value and side-effect information makes it inadequate for confident invocation.

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, but the description compensates by explaining the 'path' parameter as a list of path components with concrete examples. It adds meaning about the expected input structure, although it does not specify exact naming requirements or case sensitivity.

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 the tool's function clearly: 'Navigate browser by path list to get items at that location.' The verb 'navigate' with resource 'browser' provides a specific action and scope. However, it does not differentiate from similar sibling tools like get_browser_items_at_path, which appears to also retrieve items at a path.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_browser_tree or search_browser. The description implies usage when you know the path, but it does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or alternatives. This is a clear gap.

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