remarkable_browse

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. The description adds valuable context about three operation modes, path relativity, and the effect of REMARKABLE_ROOT_PATH. No contradictions.

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 well-organized with sections (usecase, instructions, parameters, examples). While slightly verbose, each section serves a purpose and adds clarity. Slightly more concise presentation could improve scannability, but overall effective.

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 the tool has an output schema (not shown but present), the description covers all necessary aspects: modes, parameters, configuration note, and examples. It is complete for an agent to correctly select and invoke this 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 coverage is 0%, but the description fully explains each parameter: path (default '/', folder navigation), query (optional, triggers search), tags (optional list, case-insensitive). Examples demonstrate parameter combinations.

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 browses or searches the reMarkable library. It specifies three modes (browse, search, filter by tags) with examples. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like remarkable_search and remarkable_recent.

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 explicitly covers when to use each mode, including path navigation, search term triggering search mode, and optional tag filtering. It also notes the REMARKABLE_ROOT_PATH constraint. Examples cover all major use cases.

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