browse_repository

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely says 'browse', a weak indicator of read-only behavior, but does not explicitly state that the tool performs a read operation, what happens with an invalid parent_id, pagination behavior via max_items, or any permission requirements. This is a significant gap.

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 extremely concise at six words, with no fluff and the verb front-loaded. However, the brevity comes at the cost of critical context. While it earns its place as a minimal statement, it is under-specified for a tool with parameters and no other documentation.

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?

With an output schema present, explaining return values is unnecessary. However, the description lacks guidance on parameters, usage scenarios, and behavior. For a tool with two optional params and no annotations, the description should cover basics like the default parent_id='-my-' and what 'browse' returns (e.g., child nodes). This is incomplete.

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%, meaning the input schema includes no descriptions for max_items or parent_id. The tool description does not mention these parameters at all, so it adds no semantic clarity. An agent must guess that parent_id refers to a node ID and max_items limits results, but nothing explains their meaning, defaults, or acceptable values.

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 names the verb 'browse' and the resource 'Alfresco repository structure', giving a basic sense of purpose. However, it is vague about what 'browse' returns or how it relates to sibling tools like get_node_properties or search_content. It does not explicitly distinguish itself, so an agent might not know whether this lists child nodes or performs a search.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that browsing is for navigating the folder tree as opposed to searching, nor does it mention prerequisites like parent_id. No exclusions or alternatives are named, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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