mop_browse_documents

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does describe the return shape ('files' and 'subcollections'), the use of ctx for progress, and its exploratory nature. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it mention error behavior or permission requirements, leaving some ambiguity.

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-structured with clear sections and a strong first sentence. There is minor redundancy between the English opening and the German PURPOSE line, and the Args section includes a non-schema ctx parameter, but overall it is scannable and efficiently written.

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?

For a simple browse tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage boundaries, argument semantics, and return structure. It is nearly complete, but the undocumented ctx parameter and lack of explicit read-only/error details keep it from being fully self-sufficient.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by explaining collection with example values (Texte, Register) and limit as 'Maximale Anzahl Dateien,' adding meaning beyond the bare schema. On the downside, it also documents a ctx parameter that is not present in the input schema, which could potentially confuse an agent about what arguments to supply.

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 first sentence clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Browse files and subcollections in MoP.' The PURPOSE section reinforces that it provides an overview of available files, and the WHEN NOT TO USE section distinguishes it from search_documents and get_document, making it easy to tell apart from siblings.

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 explicit WHEN TO USE and WHEN NOT TO USE sections. It tells the agent to use this for exploration without a concrete search term, and to use search_documents() instead for specific searches and get_document() for metadata. This is strong alternative guidance.

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