get_firefox_info

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

The description adds useful context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by listing the specific type of configuration data returned. It describes what information is accessible, which helps the agent set expectations about the tool's output, though it does not detail any potential limitations or edge 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 a single, focused sentence that front-loads the main action and includes specific examples. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 simplicity of the tool (no parameters, no output schema, read-only), the description provides sufficient context for selection and invocation. It names key configuration elements, though a more explicit note about the return format could slightly improve completeness.

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?

With zero parameters, the description has no need to explain parameter semantics. The absence of parameters is clear from the schema, and the description adds no extraneous information, which is appropriate.

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 retrieves configuration information about the current Firefox instance, specifying concrete items like binary path, environment variables, and output file location. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool get_firefox_output by focusing on configuration rather than output content.

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?

No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose is clear, there is no mention of similar tools like get_firefox_output or when it would be preferable to use this one over others.

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