browse_csdk_docs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently states what the tool returns (list or file content) and how the optional file parameter changes that behavior. It implies a read-only operation without explicitly claiming side effects, which is sufficient for a documentation browsing tool.

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 two sentences long, front-loads the purpose and return behavior, and includes a usage note. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or vague filler.

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 simple (2 parameters, no output schema), and the description covers the core purpose, return modes, and usage context. The sibling tools provide contrast, and the description explains enough for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. Minor gaps (e.g., error handling) are not critical for this use case.

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 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for both parameters, including the example values and the 'omit to list all files' behavior. The description adds no new parameter information beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 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 tool's action ('Browse CSDK documentation by category') and specifies the two possible return types: a list of files or full content of a specific file. It also distinguishes from the sibling tool search_csdk_docs by positioning it as a direct browsing alternative, satisfying the goal of differentiating tools.

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 gives a clear usage trigger: 'Use this when you know which category or file you need, instead of searching.' This explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool and when to prefer search, providing practical guidance beyond what the schema offers.

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