browse_interests

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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, and the description does not contradict them. It adds useful behavioral context beyond those flags: the result is a 'bounded snapshot' (not exhaustive) and returned items are sources that can be opened for discussions. This is moderate context, comparable to the annotation coverage, so 3.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, with the second sentence explaining the immediate next step. No filler or repetition.

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 zero parameters, rich safety annotations, and a simple action, the description is largely sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It conveys what the agent will see (a bounded set of interests) and what to do with the output (open a source for discussions), though it leaves the exact shape/size of the snapshot unspecified.

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?

There are no parameters in the schema, so there is no parameter documentation burden on the description. Per the 0-parameter baseline, 4 is appropriate; the description does not need to explain values or formats that do not exist.

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 action ('browse') and a clearly scoped resource ('a bounded snapshot of interest areas'), and adds the follow-up affordance of opening a source. It is understandable on its own, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_interests or list_emerging_interests, so it stops short of full sibling distinction.

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 an exploratory use case: when you want a limited snapshot of interest areas and intend to open sources to see discussions. It gives no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives and names no sibling tools, so an agent must infer that this is the casual-browsing option rather than a comprehensive listing.

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