ragbrain_browse_namespace

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

No annotations are provided, so the description is the sole source for behavioral info. It discloses that the tool is a read operation (listing documents) and mentions return fields. However, it does not clarify pagination behavior (though the limit parameter is documented in schema) or whether there are any other side effects or authentication needs. Given no annotations, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 very concise: two sentences. The first sentence states the core function and return values; the second provides usage guidance. No unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the main purpose.

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 has no output schema, so the description must explain return values. It does so by listing names, IDs, chunk counts, and creation dates. However, it does not mention ordering or whether there is pagination beyond the limit parameter. For a browsing tool, this is a minor gap. Score 3 means adequate but could be more complete.

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 100% (both 'namespace' and 'limit' have descriptions). The description adds context by explaining namespace as 'a particular knowledge area' with examples ('personal', 'work/projects'), which adds meaning beyond the schema. The limit parameter details (default 50, max 200) are in schema, but the description reinforces usage. Slight room for improvement if description clarified the effect of limit on results.

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 function: listing documents in a namespace. It specifies the verb 'list' and the resource 'documents in a namespace', and mentions return fields (names, IDs, chunk counts, dates). It distinguishes from siblings like ragbrain_search (query-based) and ragbrain_list_namespaces (lists namespaces, not documents).

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 a usage hint: 'Use this to see what's in a particular knowledge area.' This implies when to use it but does not mention when to avoid it or explicitly compare to siblings like ragbrain_discover_documents or ragbrain_search. More explicit guidance on alternatives would improve this.

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