browse

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool browses/inspects, implying read-only behavior, but does not explicitly confirm it is non-destructive. It mentions 'recent items' but does not clarify ordering or whether results are always recent. Partial transparency, but gaps remain (e.g., effect on state, pagination, error handling).

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 extremely concise (two sentences) and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose. Every sentence earns its place, providing examples and contrast without unnecessary words.

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 5 parameters (1 required) and an output schema, the description covers key usage contexts (browsing recent items, scanning domains, confirming signals). It does not explain output schema (not required per rules) but could be more explicit about ordering, read-only nature, or error conditions. Overall adequate for the complexity.

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 100% with all 5 parameters described in the input schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level details beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 recent items' and 'inspect a namespace by filters alone.' It provides specific use cases (recent memory, domain bucket, confirm signals flowing) and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'recall' by contrasting with a 'more specific recall query.' The verb 'browse' matches the tool name.

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 explicitly advises when to use the tool: 'when you do not yet know what to search for' and 'before writing a more specific recall query.' It enumerates scenarios (see recent memory, scan domain bucket, confirm signals flowing) and implicitly distinguishes from alternatives like 'recall' by naming it directly.

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