browse_source

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits on its own. It says 'browse' but does not specify whether this returns file contents, a directory listing, or both. It also does not mention side effects, authentication needs, or error behavior. The description only indicates refs are supported (branch/tag/commit) and that empty path refers to root, which is minimal transparency.

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 composed of a single sentence stating the purpose followed by a compact arg list. Every sentence provides necessary information, and the structure is front-loaded with the core function. There is no fluff or repetition of schema defaults; the arg list adds semantics not present in the 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?

The description covers the core purpose and parameters, and the presence of an output schema means return values need not be explained. However, given no annotations, it omits explicit read-only status or any behavioral caveats. For a simple read-oriented tool, the description is mostly adequate but leaves open whether this is a read-only operation and what 'browse' entails (content vs. listing), which is a notable gap.

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 compensates by listing all 4 parameters with brief meanings: path (file or directory path, empty for root), ref (branch/tag/commit, default main), workspace slug, and repo slug. This adds value beyond the schema by clarifying the semantics of 'path' and the default for 'ref'. However, it could go further by explaining relationships (e.g., workspace/repo format) or constraints.

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 tool's purpose: 'Browse repository source files at a specific ref (branch/tag/commit)'. This uses a specific verb ('browse') and resource ('repository source files'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_repos or list_branches. The ref scope adds precision about what is being accessed.

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 does not provide explicit usage guidance or exclusions. It only states what the tool does, not when to choose it over alternatives. With 31 sibling tools covering repos, branches, PRs, and pipelines, the description could mention that it is for reading source files rather than metadata or modifications, but no such guidance is given.

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