pfc_browse_commands

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses navigation behavior but does not explicitly state read-only nature, auth requirements, or error handling. As a browse tool, it's likely safe, but lacks explicit behavioral traits.

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?

Well-structured with bullet points, clear sections. Front-loads the main purpose. Every sentence provides value; no fluff.

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?

Has output schema (reducing need to explain return values). Covers usage, navigation levels, and related tools. Lacks behavioral details like rate limits or explicit read-only statement, but sufficient for a simple browse tool.

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 coverage is 100% and description adds concrete examples for the command parameter and lists available version enums. It adds meaning beyond schema without redundancy.

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?

Description clearly states it's for browsing PFC command documentation by path, acting like 'glob + cat'. It specifies navigation levels (no command, category only, full command) and contrasts with sibling tools like pfc_query_command and pfc_browse_reference.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (know category/exact command, want to explore) and when to use alternatives (pfc_query_command for keyword search). The 'When to use' and 'Related tools' sections provide clear guidance.

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