plainhub_browse

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the outcome (a repository view with a file sidebar is opened), which is useful behavioral context beyond a bare name. However, it says nothing about whether authentication is required (notable given plainhub_auth/plainhub_auth_status siblings), what is returned, or what happens on an invalid repo.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with the purpose first and the routing rule second. The example line is slightly redundant with the schema's own example, which is the only waste.

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?

A single fully-documented required parameter, no output schema, and a clear statement of the resulting view make this largely self-sufficient. The missing piece is any note on authentication or failure behavior, which matters given the auth-related sibling tools.

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%, so the repo parameter is already documented as owner/name format. The description repeats the same example in its 'Example' line, adding no meaning beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Open a GitHub repository in PlainHub with the file sidebar') and then distinguishes itself from the sibling that opens a single file. An agent can tell this apart from plainhub_open without inspecting either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit selection condition: use it when the user wants to browse a repository rather than open one file, which implicitly routes the alternative case to plainhub_open. No explicit exclusions regarding auth or permissions, but the core when-to-use guidance is clear.

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