gui_browse

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

Without annotations, the description provides key behavioral traits: it opens the browser, applies a filter, returns card IDs, and requires Anki to be in the foreground. It could mention that the browser stays open or error behavior, but still adds significant value beyond structured fields.

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 sentences with no wasted words: the first covers action and output, the second adds an essential prerequisite. Perfectly front-loaded for quick understanding.

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 simple tool with one parameter and an output schema (not shown), the description gives a basic understanding. However, it omits details on side effects (browser remains open), error handling for invalid queries, and the exact return structure, leaving some gaps.

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 only parameter 'query' is described as a filter, but with 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain the query syntax or format (e.g., Anki search syntax). It merely restates that it filters, which is minimal additional meaning.

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 action (open Anki's Card Browser), the resource (Card Browser), and what it returns (shown card IDs). It distinguishes from sibling tools like gui_deck_browser or find_cards by specifying GUI interaction and filtering by query.

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 that the tool is for browsing cards with a query in the GUI, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives (e.g., find_cards for non-GUI retrieval). The foreground requirement hints at GUI context but no direct exclusions or comparisons.

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