phabricator_repository_browse

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only says 'Browse', implying a read operation but offering no details on side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error behavior. The description carries the full burden for transparency but fails to disclose common behavioral traits for a file browsing tool.

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 concise at one sentence, front-loading the purpose immediately. It could be slightly more structured by separating the purpose from the usage hint, but it remains efficient without redundant information.

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 has 6 parameters (path, repository, commit, needValidityOnly, limit, offset) and no output schema, the description only covers path and commit. It omits important context like the optional validity check mode, pagination parameters, and the expected return structure (list of files/directories), which are critical for complete agent understanding.

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?

While the schema already has 100% description coverage, the description adds valuable semantic context by clarifying that the 'commit' parameter can accept branch names ('Pass branch names here'), which is not obvious from the schema's 'Commit hash or branch name'. This reduces ambiguity.

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 verb 'Browse' and the resource 'repository directory tree', specifying the key parameters path and commit/branch. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like phabricator_repository_file_content (get file content) or phabricator_repository_code_search (search code), as it focuses on directory listing.

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 one explicit usage hint ('Pass a branch name via the commit parameter'), which aids parameter assignment. However, it lacks guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like code search or file history, and does not mention when not to use it (e.g., for large repositories requiring pagination hints).

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