browse

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. While 'browse' and 'inspect' imply a read-only operation, the description does not explicitly state immutability or potential side effects. It adequately signals non-destructive behavior without being overly formal.

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: three sentences that front-load the purpose, then explain when to use it. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy or fluff.

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 (5 parameters, output schema exists), the description covers the core use case and filtering approach. It hints at ordering implicitly ('recent items') but does not elaborate on ordering or pagination. Overall, it is sufficient for a browse tool with a well-defined schema.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context like 'namespace such as project:<workspace>' and 'filters alone', but these are already implicit in the schema descriptions. No significant additional meaning is provided beyond what the schema offers.

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: browsing recent items when unsure what to search for, using filters. It distinguishes itself from 'recall' by positioning browse as a preliminary step, making the purpose highly specific.

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?

Provides explicit usage context: 'when you do not yet know what to search for', 'inspect a namespace by filters alone', and gives examples like viewing recent memory or scanning a domain bucket. It also contrasts with recall, aiding selection.

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