remarkable_browse

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: the auto-redirect to remarkable_read for document paths, the list of result fields (names, types, paths, dates), and the root-path scoping. It does not describe edge cases like empty folders or permission errors, but the core behavior is transparent.

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-organized with sections (usecase, instructions, parameters, examples) and uses clear formatting. It is not overly verbose and every sentence adds value. It could be slightly tighter (e.g., merging the root path note into the path guidance), but the structure is effective and front-loads the core action.

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 output schema exists, the description need not explain return structure, and it does mention result fields anyway. It covers the primary path parameter and the auto-redirect behavior, which is important. However, the compact_output parameter is undocumented, and there is no mention of pagination or large-folder behavior. For a read-only browsing tool with two parameters, the missing parameter is a notable completeness gap.

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 schema has two parameters: path and compact_output, but the description only documents path. The schema description coverage is 0% per context signals, so the description carries the full burden. It explains path usage with examples and defaults, but compact_output is completely omitted—an agent would not know it exists or what it does. This is a significant gap for one of two parameters.

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 opens with a clear usecase: 'Browse your reMarkable library folders' and explicitly states 'List contents of a folder on your reMarkable tablet.' It distinguishes itself from siblings by noting that browsing to a document path redirects to remarkable_read, and it names remarkable_search as the alternative for name/content search. The verb-resource pairing is specific and unambiguous.

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 usage instructions: how to use path for root and subfolders, the behavior of document paths (auto-redirect to read), and the REMARKABLE_ROOT_PATH constraint. It also directly points to remarkable_search() when searching is needed, giving clear when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance. No alternative is left ambiguous.

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