list_firefox_tab_groups

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'List' strongly implies a read-only operation, and the 'optionally restricted' clause conveys a filtering behavior. However, it does not disclose return format, pagination, or error behavior (e.g., what happens with an invalid windowId). This is a minimal but not fully transparent disclosure.

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 sentence with only 11 words, front-loading the verb and resource. Every word contributes value; there is no fluff or repetition of schema constraints.

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 simple list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality: listing groups and the optional filter. It does not mention return format or edge cases, but these are less critical given the tool's simplicity. It is fairly complete for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 schema provides zero description for the windowId parameter, but the description adds meaningful context: 'optionally restricted to one window ID' explains that windowId is a filter. It does not elaborate on how to obtain a window ID, but for a single optional param with clear constraints in the schema, this is sufficient to understand its role.

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 starts with the specific verb 'List' and clearly identifies the resource: 'Firefox tab groups.' It also notes the optional window restriction, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_firefox_tabs (which lists tabs) and create_firefox_tab_group (which creates groups). This makes the purpose unambiguous.

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 description implies when to use the tool: when you need to enumerate Firefox tab groups, optionally filtered by a window ID. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria. The sibling tool names provide some context, but the description itself does not say 'use this instead of list_firefox_tabs' or similar. This is adequate but lacks explicit guidance.

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