phabricator_repository_browse

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description only reinforces that with 'Browse' without adding anything new. It says nothing about return shape (entries vs. metadata), pagination behavior via limit/offset, or how needValidityOnly changes results — all real behavioral questions for this call.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, with zero filler. It is efficiently written, though the second sentence spends space restating what the schema already says about the commit parameter.

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?

Six optional parameters and no output schema mean the description should clarify what a browse returns and how pagination/validity-check modes behave; it does none of that. The 100% schema coverage of parameters mitigates this, leaving it adequate but with clear gaps.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The only semantic addition — 'Pass a branch name via the commit parameter' — largely duplicates the schema text ('Commit hash or branch name... Pass branch names here'), and the description never mentions path defaults, pagination, or needValidityOnly.

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 a specific verb and resource: browsing a repository directory tree at a path and revision. It implicitly separates itself from siblings like phabricator_repository_file_content and phabricator_repository_code_search by framing this as tree/directory listing, but it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied by the verb 'browse' and the note that branch names go in the commit parameter. There is no statement of when to prefer this over repository_file_content, repository_code_search, or repository_file_history, and no exclusions.

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