browse

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Browse' implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, but the description does not disclose potential edge cases such as offline users, pagination, or failure behavior. It adds minimal behavioral context beyond the verb.

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?

One concise sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the action and object.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description captures the core functionality. It lacks caveats around user availability or result size, but the output schema handles return values. Good enough for most selection and invocation cases.

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%, so the description must clarify parameters. It ties the username to 'a Soulseek user', indicating the parameter identifies whose shares to browse, but it does not add format, constraints, or how to obtain the username. The simple parameter is self-explanatory enough.

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 states a specific action ('Browse') and a clear resource ('everything a Soulseek user is sharing'), making the tool's purpose evident. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the contrast with search/search_results is implicit.

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 implies the tool is used when you want a full listing of a particular user's shared files, but it offers no explicit guidance on when to choose it over search or search_results, nor any exclusions.

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