list_services_browse

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

Annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive safety profile, so the description does not need to restate that. It adds a small behavioral detail by showing that include_files affects whether files appear in browse results, but it does not explain defaults or other behavioral caveats.

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 compact and well-structured: operation first, then the HTTP route, then the argument. There is no filler, and the layout makes the single parameter easy to scan.

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?

For a simple, one-optional-parameter read tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the description is nearly sufficient for an agent to attempt a call. However, it omits the relationship to get_services_browse_by_base64path and does not clarify whether 'browse filesystem' means listing the root or some other default scope.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for the parameter, but 'include_files: Include files in browse results' largely restates the schema's property title. It does not explain accepted values, whether a truthy flag is expected, or what happens when the parameter is omitted.

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 states a concrete operation ('Browse') on a clear resource ('Filesystem') and provides the HTTP route, so an agent can understand the basic action. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from the sibling get_services_browse_by_base64path, leaving some scope ambiguity.

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 guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_services_browse_by_base64path. The description does not mention whether this is the root-level browse operation or how the path-specific sibling differs, so the agent must infer the right choice from the tool name alone.

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