Browse a category

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

Beyond the read-only and idempotent annotations, the description discloses non-obvious behaviors: category names are library-controlled, missing categories return results indistinguishable from empty ones, the 'Category:' prefix is optional, cross-category queries are unsupported, 'total' is always null, and 'has_more'/'cursor' govern pagination. It also adds an attribution and linking requirement.

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 front-loaded and every sentence carries a distinct, useful fact. It is somewhat dense and longer than strictly necessary for a listing tool, but the extra length is mostly justified by the category, empty-result, and pagination quirks.

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?

Together with the schema and annotations, the description covers what the tool does, where valid category names come from, how to handle missing categories and combinations, what pagination looks like, and how to credit IMSLP. Nothing needed to invoke the tool correctly is left unexplained.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real value: category values should come from get_work and may omit the prefix, while cursor should be echoed back from a previous response rather than constructed. The limit parameter gains no extra explanation, which keeps this from a 5.

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 'Read the works IMSLP files under a category' and enumerates the category kinds (genre, key, instrumentation, period), making the tool’s job unambiguous. It also references get_work and distinguishes browsing a category from searching or fetching a single work.

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?

It gives clear guidance to pass category names from get_work rather than inventing them, explains that unknown categories behave like empty ones, and explicitly handles the common multi-category question by advising the agent to browse one category and read the other off each work. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives like search_works, but the usage context is still clear.

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