kodi_browse

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and the description usefully adds that browsing is single-page and non-recursive with no playback side effects. It does not explain why the operation is flagged non-read-only (live provider queries, timeouts, provider wake-up costs), so meaningful behavioral context is still missing.

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 compact clauses with no filler, and the core scope ('Preview one page of actual provider/library folders') is front-loaded. Brevity is a virtue here, though it borders on under-specification.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the safety profile is partially covered by annotations. Still, for a tool with an unexplained 'path' required argument and underspecified pagination, the description leaves key operational details (path format, 'idle' definition, opt-in mechanism) unclear.

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% and the description says nothing about the three parameters. 'one page' hints at pagination, but the meaning/format of 'path', and how 'limit' and 'start' interact, are left entirely undocumented in both places.

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?

Specific verb ('Preview'/'browse') plus resource ('provider/library folders') and an explicit scope limit ('one page'). It also rules out related behaviors ('no recursive loading or playback'), which implicitly separates it from kodi_read and playback tools, though no sibling is named directly.

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 clause 'opt-in, idle-only' supplies a precondition for use (must be idle, must be opted in), which is genuine usage context. However, it never says when to choose this over kodi_read, kodi_layout_preview, or other folder-listing siblings, so the guidance is only implied.

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