查找已安装浏览器

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the scope (Chromium-family only, executable paths) and implies a read-only listing, but says nothing about whether results are cached, how the filesystem is scanned, or what the shape of the return is.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste. The resource being listed comes first and the intended consumer (browser_launch) trails as a brief rationale.

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 discovery tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is nearly complete: it names what is returned (installed browsers and their paths) and why. The only gap is the lack of differentiation from the overlapping browser_discover sibling.

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, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description adds no parameter detail because none exists, which is correct; there is no parameter gap to compensate for.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: lists locally installed Chromium-family browsers and their executable paths. This clearly distinguishes it from launch/connect siblings, though it does not explicitly set itself apart from browser_discover, which could plausibly overlap.

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 trailing clause '供 browser_launch 使用' implies the downstream workflow (feed results into browser_launch), which is useful context. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives such as browser_discover or browser_list_processes, leaving the agent to infer the distinction.

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