列出浏览器进程

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does notable work: it discloses that results are annotated as attachable/non-attachable, that attachability depends on --remote-debugging-port, and that Firefox/Safari are always non-attachable. Gaps remain (read-only nature is only implied, no mention of output shape or failure behavior).

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?

Two tight sentences, the core purpose is front-loaded, and every clause earns its place by adding the CDP constraint and browser-exclusion behavior.

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 two-parameter read-only enumeration with no output schema, the definition covers what the agent most needs to interpret results (attachability marking). It could say more about the returned fields or whether filtering affects children, but it is largely complete.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents 'filter' and 'includeChildren'. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource: enumerating locally running browser processes, and adds the distinguishing CDP-attachability angle. This clearly separates it from siblings like browser_installed (installed vs running) and browser_discover, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied – an agent can infer it should run this before browser_connect to find an attachable target, but the description never states when to use it versus browser_discover/browser_installed or any prerequisites for the call itself.

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