browse_path

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that navigation returns items but does not clarify side effects, error behavior, read-only status, or return format. The examples give some context but are insufficient for a complete understanding.

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 extremely concise: two sentences plus examples. The main verb and resource are front-loaded, and every word adds value. This is a model of efficient communication for a simple tool.

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?

The tool has one parameter and no output schema, so the description should clarify what items are returned. It states 'get items at that location' but does not describe the structure or type of items. Given the low complexity, this is a minimal but not fully complete description; a slightly clearer return contract would improve 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?

The schema provides no description for the 'path' parameter, and the description compensates with clear examples (e.g., ["Audio Effects", "EQ Eight"]). This gives useful context but does not fully specify all aspects (e.g., case sensitivity, handling of invalid paths). Since there is only one simple parameter with example-based semantics, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific action ('Navigate browser by path list') and the resource ('browser'), indicating what the tool does. It distinguishes from siblings like search_browser and get_browser_tree by emphasizing path-based navigation, but does not explicitly differentiate from the closely related get_browser_items_at_path, so it loses one point.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_browser_items_at_path or get_browser_tree. The description gives examples but does not state the preferred scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. This makes it unclear for an agent to choose between sibling tools.

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