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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces them with the concrete consequence that nothing is opened or changed server-side. It also discloses the return shape (screens, buttons, fields), which annotations cannot convey. Missing details are minor, such as roughly how long or structured the returned steps are.

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 core is front-loaded and useful, but "from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent" is promotional filler, and the trailing "Midjourney's official API: Midjourney has no public API (checked 5 Nov 2026)" is tangential justification that pads the sentence. The operative instruction about cotlet_browser_* is buried mid-sentence rather than broken out.

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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only guidance tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned, that nothing is executed, and which tools finish the job. What is missing is how the agent should determine the folder/creation context before calling, which matters for a parameterless tool whose subject must come from conversation.

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 tool takes zero parameters (schema coverage 100%, empty object), so there is no parameter semantics for the description to explain; baseline 4 applies. The description does not need to add anything here, though the absence of any folder identifier is worth noting for the caller.

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 states a specific action and, crucially, corrects the expectation set by the name: it returns step-by-step Midjourney guidance rather than performing the folder add. That distinction is spelled out ("Returns how to do it in Midjourney step by step (screens, buttons, fields) and opens nothing by itself"), which is well beyond a tautology. It stops short of 5 because it never clarifies how the target folder is identified given the tool takes no parameters.

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 routing is explicit: use this to get the instructions, then execute with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Midjourney Cloud Browser, which distinguishes it from the browser_* siblings. There is no explicit "do not use when" statement or guidance on choosing between this and other midjourney_* action tools, so it falls one step short of full usage guidance.

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