browse_library

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 states the tool 'browse[s] content' but doesn't clarify if this is read-only, what the output format looks like (e.g., paginated list, metadata fields), or any performance considerations (e.g., rate limits, large result sets). For a tool with 39 parameters and no output schema, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Browse content within a specific Plex library') and adds key capabilities ('with filtering and sorting options'). There is zero waste, and every word earns its place by clarifying the tool's scope beyond the name.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (39 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like output format, pagination behavior, or error handling. While the schema covers parameters well, the description fails to provide necessary context for effective use, especially for a browsing tool with extensive filtering options.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all 39 parameters with descriptions, defaults, and enums. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying filtering and sorting capabilities. This meets the baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate with high-level context like parameter interactions or usage examples.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Browse content within a specific Plex library with filtering and sorting options.' It specifies the verb ('browse'), resource ('content within a specific Plex library'), and scope ('filtering and sorting options'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'browse_collection' or 'browse_playlist,' which browse different resource types.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication), compare it to sibling tools like 'search_plex' or 'browse_libraries,' or specify when it's appropriate versus other browsing tools. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and schema alone.

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