browse_files

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Browse' implies a read-only listing, but the description does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, nor does it mention pagination, output format, or any side effects. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the tool's name.

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, concise sentence that is well-structured and front-loaded with the action and resource. It is efficient and easy to parse, though it may be slightly too sparse for a tool with six parameters and no output 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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not describe the return format, pagination behavior, or what 'browse' actually returns (e.g., a list of entries with metadata). The description leaves out key contextual information that an agent would need to correctly interpret the tool's output and usage.

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 has 100% parameter description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions 'path and ref' but adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides for those parameters. It does not elaborate on required parameters like projectKey or repositorySlug, but the schema covers them.

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 action (browse) and resource (files/directories in a repository), with a given path and ref. It is not explicitly differentiated from siblings like get_file_content or list_branches, but the verb and resource make the primary purpose unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_file_content or list_branches. It does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and general purpose.

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