browse_interests

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it lists interest areas and adds a note about their content, but does not explicitly confirm read-only nature, mention pagination, ordering, or any potential side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool that could easily be confused with siblings.

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 concise, only two sentences, with the primary action front-loaded. The extra sentence about interest content adds contextual value without bloat. Every word earns its place.

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 list tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly adequate. However, it fails to distinguish itself from the sibling 'list_interests' and does not hint at return structure (e.g., whether it returns objects or strings, pagination behavior). This lack of distinction is a notable gap in context, bringing the score down.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides no additional meaning. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4. It adds no parameter-related information, which is appropriate.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'interest areas in The Commons', making the tool's purpose unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate itself from the sibling tool 'list_interests', which appears to serve a similar function, so it falls short of a 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, especially the closely named 'list_interests'. There is no mention of exclusions, alternatives, or specific scenarios, leaving the agent to guess which list tool is appropriate.

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