Browse Set

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

The annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those: DB-backed performance characteristics, the exact direct-record response style, stateless pagination that is not portable across server upgrades, and the verbosity/suppression behavior of includeExtentText. No contradiction with annotations.

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 dense but justifiably so — it covers source data, return fields, pagination, a performance trait, a verbose-flag caveat, and usage boundaries. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. Slightly long, but every sentence earns its place; only a small reorganization into bullets could make it more scannable.

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 tool's complexity and the presence of a rich output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs to invoke it correctly: how to obtain setSpec, what records look like, when to call get_artwork_details, pagination semantics, and the exclusion for set discovery. Nothing critical is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra semantic value by explaining where setSpec comes from, that resumptionToken makes setSpec ignored, and that includeExtentText defaults to false because the field is large and not rendered in the text channel. This goes beyond the raw schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Enumerate the member artworks of one curated set by setSpec.' It also explicitly distinguishes itself from list_curated_sets ('Not for set discovery') and positions itself relative to get_artwork_details, so an agent can tell exactly what this tool does versus siblings.

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?

It gives explicit prerequisites ('Get setSpec values from list_curated_sets'), tells the agent when this tool is not appropriate ('Not for set discovery — use list_curated_sets first'), and names the follow-up alternative for more detail ('follow up with get_artwork_details'). This is strong, decision-ready guidance.

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