browse_related_pages

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

Annotations already establish that the tool is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, lowering the bar for the description. The description adds one behavioral detail—the related-page graph is traversed to one-hop and two-hop depth—but does not disclose ordering, pagination, or how 'related' is determined.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence states the resource and the scope with no filler. 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?

The tool is a simple one-parameter read-only operation, and an output schema is present, so the description does not need to explain return values. It provides the causal action, the domain (Cosense), and the traversal range, leaving little doubt about how to invoke it; only the broader selection guidance is absent, which is already covered under usage guidelines.

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 input schema has no property descriptions and page_url only has type and length constraints. The description supplies the semantic that page_url should point to a Cosense page, which is useful, but it does not specify expected URL forms or how to encode page names. With a single self-descriptive parameter, this is adequate but thin.

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 ('List') and a precise object: one-hop and two-hop pages related to a Cosense page. Naming the traversal depth distinguishes this from a generic page reader or search tool, so an agent can tell it apart without inspecting the 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?

No text explains when to choose this tool over siblings such as browse_page, read_page, or search_full_text, and no conditions or prerequisites are given. The only usage context is implicit in the purpose statement.

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