browse_files

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the non-obvious behavior of result ordering ('newest first') and the scope (the user's Mac), but says nothing about result caps, pagination, or what happens when no filter matches.

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 short sentences, ordering stated first where it matters, then the filter capability demonstrated with concrete query phrasings. Nothing is padded.

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, so the description should hint at what a result record contains and how the default limit affects results; it does neither. It is adequate for selecting the tool but leaves gaps an agent must discover by calling it.

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 75%: kind, folder and name_contains are documented in the schema, while limit is undocumented in both places. The description's examples helpfully map natural user phrasing onto the filter parameters, but it never mentions the limit parameter or its default of 20.

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 and resource ('List the user's Mac files') plus an ordering guarantee ('newest first'), which an agent cannot infer from the schema. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling search_files tool, so an agent cannot tell from the description alone which of the two to pick when the request is name-based.

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 inline examples ('my latest screenshots', 'PDFs in Downloads') implicitly show the intended use case of browsing with a filter, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus search_files or read_file. Usage is inferred rather than declared.

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