browse_sets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool's modes but fails to describe key traits such as whether it's read-only or has side effects, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or the format of returned data (e.g., pagination, error handling). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to invoke it safely and effectively.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's dual functionality without any redundant or unnecessary information. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and uses clear, direct language, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with two parameters and dual functionality. It doesn't explain what data is returned (e.g., set lists with card counts, card details), potential errors, or behavioral constraints, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively in complex scenarios.

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 100%, meaning the input schema fully documents both parameters ('set_name' and 'limit') with descriptions, types, and constraints. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by hinting at the dual functionality based on 'set_name', but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 states the tool's function with specific verbs ('browse', 'list', 'view') and resources ('One Piece TCG sets', 'cards'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'search_cards' or 'card_versions', which might also involve card or set data, so it misses the highest score.

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 implies usage by mentioning two modes: listing all sets or viewing cards in a specific set, based on whether 'set_name' is provided. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_cards' or 'card_versions', and doesn't specify prerequisites or exclusions, leaving some ambiguity.

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