get_browser_items_at_path

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that the tool lists items and what each item reports, implying a read-only, non-mutating operation. While it doesn't cover edge cases like invalid paths or recursive behavior, it provides sufficient transparency for a simple listing tool.

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 consists of two tightly written sentences. The action verb 'List' leads the first sentence, and the second sentence efficiently conveys the output fields. There is no redundant or extraneous wording.

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 tool with a single parameter, an output schema, and no annotations, this description covers the essentials: purpose, path examples, and returned data. It does not discuss recursion, error handling, or path resolution semantics, but given the tool's simplicity, the description is largely complete. The presence of an output schema means return value details are less critical.

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?

The input schema only defines 'path' as a string with 0% description coverage. The description compensates by providing concrete examples of path formats ('instruments/Operator' or 'drums'), giving the agent valuable guidance on what to pass. It doesn't exhaustively specify syntax details (e.g., leading slashes, case sensitivity), so it stops short of 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 uses the specific verb 'List' with a clear resource ('browser items at a path'), and it gives concrete examples of valid paths ('instruments/Operator' or 'drums'). It also enumerates the returned fields (name, is_folder, is_loadable, uri), making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like get_browser_tree.

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 usage when you have a specific path and want its immediate items, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_browser_tree. There is no mention of exclusions or when-not-to-use conditions, so the guidance is largely implicit.

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