mind_browse

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose useful behavior: newest-first ordering, no relevance ranking, and that metadata filters rather than query matching drive results. However, it says nothing about pagination behavior, whether 'limit' is the only paging mechanism, authentication/permission requirements, or what the response contains.

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?

Three short sentences, all front-loaded with the most discriminating information (no query, inventory not ranking) first. No filler, no restatement of the tool name.

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 read-oriented browse tool with full param coverage, the description covers scope, ordering, and filter semantics. The remaining gap is return shape/paging, which matters since there is no output schema, but it is minor for an inventory tool.

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 every parameter is documented in the schema itself, including the archived enum semantics and inclusive/exclusive date bounds. The description adds only 'Same filters as mind_search', which cross-references rather than elaborating. Baseline 3 is correct.

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+resource ('Browse/list memories by metadata') and immediately distinguishes the operation from its nearest sibling: 'WITHOUT a search query: inventory, not ranking'. The contrast with mind_search (named explicitly) lets an agent pick this tool without opening either schema.

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?

Gives three concrete trigger questions ('what did agent X write recently', 'everything from this source', 'all memories since a date') plus the discriminating condition (inventory vs ranking) and points to mind_search for shared filter semantics. This goes beyond implied usage to explicit when-to-use.

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