lpm_browse_source

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses authentication requirements, subscription/license dependencies for different package types, and advises on minimizing requests. No contradictions with annotations.

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 and well-structured. It opens with a bold 'LAST RESORT' emphasis, then presents conditions, authentication details, and a usage tip. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 no output schema and moderate complexity, the description covers purpose, usage conditions, authentication, and optimization. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 100% and the description adds strategic context (e.g., using empty string for all files) that the schema lacks. However, the param descriptions in the schema already explain the fields adequately.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: browsing source code of an LPM package remotely, and emphasizes it is a 'last resort' when installation is not possible. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like lpm_add and lpm_install.

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 provides clear when-to-use guidance ('only use this when you cannot install the package') and specifies alternatives ('prefer lpm_add or lpm_install'). It also offers tips for efficient usage (fetch directory paths).

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