load_file_browse

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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, so the description's remaining job is to add context, which it partly does by naming the filter extensions and the folder roots (user folder, SQL folder, SINGLESTORE_MCP_FILE_ROOTS). It does not say what happens with an invalid path, whether hidden or non-matching files are omitted, or how the roots are surfaced when no path is given.

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, front-loaded with the verb and scope, then the extension list and folder roots. Dense and free of filler, though the parenthetical root list reads slightly like an internal note rather than agent-facing guidance.

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 one-parameter read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description covers what is listed and which roots exist, which is most of what matters. The gaps around the null-path default and error behavior on a bad path are what keep it from being complete.

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 single `path` parameter is nullable with a null default, yet the description never explains what `path` accepts (absolute vs. relative, root alias), nor what omitting it returns. The mention of roots hints at the null case but leaves the agent to guess.

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 (list) and resource (a folder on this computer) plus the exact file types returned, so the agent knows it is a directory-listing tool rather than a reader or writer. It also ties itself to the Load file dialog and the SQL Editor's file browser, though it never explicitly says how it differs from siblings like files_browse or viya_files_browse.

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?

Usage is only implied by the phrase 'for the Load file dialog', which tells the agent the scenario but not the selection rule. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or pointer to an alternative browser tool among the many files_* and viya_files_* siblings.

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