pfc_browse_reference

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully covers behavioral aspects. It explains the three navigation levels (no topic, category, full path) and includes version-specific filtering behaviors. The input schema parameter descriptions complement this by giving detailed examples.

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: overview, navigation levels, when to use, and related tools. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids redundancy, making it efficient for an AI agent to parse.

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 purpose (browsing reference) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: navigation, usage scenarios, and parameter details. No gaps are evident.

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, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining navigation levels and when to use specific parameter values, but the schema already provides extensive examples. Thus, the description enhances meaning but is not critically necessary.

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 that the tool browses PFC reference documentation, including syntax elements and model properties. It distinguishes itself from siblings like pfc_browse_commands and pfc_query_command by specifying that references are language elements within commands, not standalone 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 explicitly lists when to use the tool, including specific scenarios like needing contact model property names, range filtering syntax, or plot item configuration. It also provides a 'Related tools' section naming alternatives, offering 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.