browsers_installed

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the 'Read-only' and 'Does not launch anything' statements are reinforcing rather than novel. The description does add real behavioral context beyond the annotations: the per-line return shape, the protocol/executable path fields, and the caveat that Safari is detected but not yet drivable.

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?

Front-loaded with the safety qualifier and the core action, then the output shape, then the consumer instruction. It is dense but every clause carries information; the enumerated browser list is the only mildly expendable element.

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?

With no output schema, the description supplies exactly what an agent needs: the line-per-browser return format, the fields emitted, the drivability flag, and the Safari support caveat. Nothing required to call it correctly is absent.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; no parameter-level detail is needed or missing.

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 ('list the browsers installed on this machine') plus the enumerated set of browsers covered. It also draws a clear line against the sibling browser_status ('shows the one in use'), so an agent can pick between them without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent what to do with the result ('Use the listed name as the browser option when starting the server') and names browser_status as the alternative for the active browser. There is no explicit 'when not to use' framing, but the routing context is clear.

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