bb_browse_repository

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention key details like whether the listing is recursive, pagination behavior, default limits, or what kinds of items are returned. The one-line description offers minimal insight into the tool's behavior beyond the basic action.

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, focused sentence that clearly states the tool's purpose without redundancy. It is concise and front-loaded, containing no filler or restatement of the tool name.

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 tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the return value, whether the listing includes nested items, or how the 'path' and 'limit' parameters affect results. The schema covers parameters but not the behavior expected, leaving significant gaps for an agent trying to use the tool effectively.

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% description coverage for all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no parameter details itself, but the schema already documents parameters like 'path', 'limit', and 'filter'. Thus, the description does not need to compensate for missing schema information.

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 uses a specific verb 'browse' with a clear resource ('files and directories in a repository') and states the purpose ('explore structure'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like bb_get_file_content, which retrieves file content, by emphasizing structural exploration.

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 phrase 'explore structure' gives clear context that this tool is for browsing directory layouts, not for fetching file contents. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, stopping short of a full 5.

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