browser_groups

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

No annotations, so the description must carry the behavioral load. It implies a pure read with no mutation, which is useful, but it doesn't say whether it returns group ids/names, whether empty groups appear, or whether the current-group marker is null when none is active. Output behavior is left entirely unstated.

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 of about fifteen words, no filler, with the most decision-relevant detail (which group this agent is working in) at the end of the clause.

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 trivial no-param read this is close to adequate, but with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves the return shape unknown — an agent can't tell if it gets group names, ids, or just a count. One more clause on return contents would make it 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?

Zero parameters, so baseline is 4; the description correctly signals a no-argument call. Nothing more is required here.

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?

Specific verb (list) plus resource (tab groups) with added scope detail: it also reports which group the agent is currently active in. Distinguishes clearly from browser_tabs (tabs) and browser_group_begin/end (group lifecycle).

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?

An agent can infer this is a read-only inspection call, and the mention of 'currently working in' implies it's useful before starting grouped work. But it never names the alternative (e.g., browser_tabs for flat tab lists) or says when not to use it.

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