slide_browse_file_restore

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only browsing operation, but does not disclose what is returned, whether the operation is non-mutating, how pagination behaves, or what happens for invalid paths. With no output schema, this leaves important behavior unspecified.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. Every phrase adds meaning and the length is appropriate for the simplicity of the operation.

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?

The core operation and required parameter are clear, and the schema covers the pagination parameters. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits the return shape and any context about how this browse operation relates to file restore lifecycle tools.

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 input schema already describes all four parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema, only reinforcing that path is optional and defaults to root.

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 states a concrete verb ('Browse') and a specific resource ('files and folders exposed by a file restore'), and mentions the optional path. This makes the tool's purpose clear, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools by 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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus related tools like slide_list_file_restores, slide_get_file_restore, or slide_browse_image_export. The intended use case is implied by the name, but not explicitly stated.

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