Leggi contenuto

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real behavior beyond that — text mode strips menus, cards collapses repeated results to one row each, links:true appends URLs, pdf handles open or downloaded files. It does not describe return shape or how paging interacts with max/offset.

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 key constraint 'Read without acting' is front-loaded and the pipe-delimited mode breakdown is dense but scannable. The telegraphic style occasionally sacrifices clarity (e.g., '+links:true URLs'), but there is little wasted text.

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?

With 7 parameters, zero required, no output schema, and 14% schema coverage, the description carries most of the burden. It covers modes and ref/query well but leaves offset/paging and the meaning of max partially unexplained, and gives no indication of what the returned content looks like.

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 only 14%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: every mode value is explained, ref/selector semantics are given ('body'=all), and query changes meaning per mode (find = matching lines, pdf = URL or downloaded file). The gaps are max (only half-documented in schema) and offset, whose paging semantics are never explained.

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?

States a specific verb and constraint ('Read without acting') and enumerates the six read modes, which makes the tool's function concrete. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the mutating sibling browse_do, but never names the resource (current page) or explicitly contrasts with browse_view/browse_search.

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 mode list implies when each mode applies (cards for 'trains, flights, products', find for searching lines), which is useful implied guidance. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over browse_view, browse_search, or browse_screenshot, so the agent must infer routing.

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