browse_user

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool reads shared files and returns a list of directories/files, which is core behavior, but it omits any mention of error handling, user existence, or rate limits. This is minimal but not misleading.

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 appropriately brief, front-loaded with the purpose, and uses a clear Args/Returns structure. Every sentence is necessary, with no redundant details.

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 1-parameter read-only tool with an output schema available, the description is nearly complete. It does not mention any prerequisites or when to use it relative to siblings, which slightly reduces completeness, but the core purpose and return value are clearly covered.

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 only the parameter name 'username' with no description. The description adds meaning by specifying 'Soulseek username to browse', clarifying the exact purpose of the parameter. This compensates for the 0% 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 identifies the action ('Browse a Soulseek user's shared files') with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_music and download_music by focusing on browsing a specific user's library.

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 usage context is implied: you use this to browse a user's shared files. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, such as whether to browse before downloading, or when a search would be more appropriate.

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