pfc_browse_reference

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 effectively describes the tool's behavior by explaining navigation levels (no topic, category, full path) and what each returns, which is crucial for understanding how to use the tool. It doesn't mention rate limits or authentication needs, but for a read-only browsing tool, the provided context is sufficient for most use cases.

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 (purpose, navigation levels, when to use, related tools), front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value—no fluff or repetition—and it efficiently covers necessary context without being verbose, making it easy for an AI agent to parse and apply.

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 (browsing hierarchical documentation), the description is complete. It explains the tool's purpose, usage scenarios, navigation behavior, and relationships to siblings. With an output schema present (as indicated in context signals), the description doesn't need to detail return values, and the provided information suffices for effective tool selection and invocation.

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, providing detailed examples for the 'topic' parameter. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'space-separated path' in the navigation levels section, but this is largely redundant with schema examples. According to scoring rules, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3 even with no additional param info in the description.

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's purpose: 'Browse PFC reference documentation (syntax elements, model properties).' It specifies the exact resource (reference documentation) and verb (browse), and distinguishes it from siblings by explaining references are 'language elements used within commands, not standalone commands,' differentiating it from command-focused tools like pfc_browse_commands.

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 provides explicit usage guidelines with a dedicated 'When to use' section listing four specific scenarios (e.g., 'Need contact model property names,' 'Setting up contact cmat add model commands'). It also names related tools (pfc_browse_commands, pfc_query_command) to clarify alternatives, ensuring clear differentiation from sibling tools.

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