browse

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

Annotations already declare this a safe, idempotent read, and the description goes well beyond them: it explains index-building on first search (short slices, a few seconds, Live stays responsive), cache persistence until refresh:true, and that heavy sample libraries are only indexed when named. The only minor gap is that refresh:true invalidation semantics could be slightly crisper.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then densely packs mode behavior into a single semicolon-structured paragraph with no filler. It is long, but each clause carries actionable detail; slight tightening of the index/search phrasing would help readability.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the work of explaining returns: paged items each with a path, ranked results with exact and prefix matches first. It is nearly complete; only the index action's own return and search result shape beyond ranking are left implicit.

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 coverage is already 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: concrete path examples ('instruments/Drift/Bass'), per-action kind defaults, the differing limit defaults (100 list vs 25 search), the default root set, and that every item carries a path for deeper browsing.

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?

States specific verbs and resource: explore/search Live's browser, and enumerates the browsable content (instruments, presets, effects, drum kits, packs, user library). It distinguishes itself from siblings by routing load actions to load_item, so an agent can tell it apart without opening schemas.

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?

Explicitly covers the three modes (list default, search, index), the defaults that select each, and names load_item as the tool to use once a path is found. Nothing about when to pick each mode is left to inference.

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