browse_repository

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful non-recursive traversal constraint, but says nothing about how branch/project resolution works, what happens with a missing path, or pagination and error behavior for a remote repository browse.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the scope qualifier is placed where it is most useful. Nothing is repeated from the tool name or schema.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but for a four-parameter tool with zero schema coverage the description is too thin. Nothing explains the branch/project parameters or the default path of "/", which are exactly the details an agent needs to call this 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 0%, so the description must carry the load and it does not: only "repository" and "path" are loosely implied by "repository folder". The "branch" and "project" parameters are entirely unexplained, leaving an agent to guess whether they are required for correct resolution or merely optional scoping.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("List files and folders in a repository folder") and constrains scope with "(one level)", which separates it from recursive listing and from get_file_content. It stops short of naming a sibling alternative explicitly, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus list_repositories, list_branches, or get_file_content, and no note about what happens when the path is a file rather than a folder. The only usable hint is the parenthetical "(one level)", which is behavioral scope rather than usage guidance.

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