pfc_browse_reference

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains navigation levels (no topic, category, full path), how the version parameter filters contact models, and that range-elements and plot-items are version-agnostic. This provides essential behavioral context beyond basic read operation.

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 well-structured with clear sections: main purpose, navigation levels, when-to-use list, and related tools. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and uses bullet points for readability. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 tool's complexity (multi-level navigation, version filtering, multiple use cases) and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers all necessary information for an agent to understand when and how to use the tool, including examples and version behavior.

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%, but the description adds significant meaning beyond the schema: it explains the navigation structure with concrete examples for the topic parameter and clarifies how version filters contact models while noting version-agnostic topics. This enhances usability for the agent.

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 it browses PFC reference documentation for syntax elements and model properties, and distinguishes from siblings by specifying that references are language elements used within commands, not standalone commands. It also lists related tools with their purposes.

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 explicitly lists when to use this tool (e.g., need contact model property names, range filtering syntax, plot item configuration) and mentions related tools (pfc_browse_commands for command syntax, pfc_query_command for keyword search), providing clear guidance on tool selection.

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