pfc_browse_commands

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

With no annotations, the description should fully disclose behavior. It explains the three navigation levels and the version parameter, implying read-only browsing. However, it does not explicitly state that no modifications are made or that results are text documentation, which is important for 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?

Concise and well-structured with bullet points for navigation levels and when-to-use. No redundant sentences; every line adds value.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema (not shown) and the tool's simple purpose, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, usage guidelines, parameter details, and related tools. It is fully self-contained.

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 100% with examples. The description adds context like 'space-separated, matching PFC syntax' and the three navigation levels, but these are already implied in the schema examples. Baseline 3 is correct as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 browses PFC command documentation by path, with specific navigation levels (all categories, category only, full command). It distinguishes from siblings like pfc_query_command and pfc_browse_reference by purpose.

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?

Explicit 'When to use' section tells the agent to use this when the command category or exact command is known, and lists alternatives for other cases (pfc_query_command for keyword search, pfc_browse_reference for reference docs).

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