browse_profiles_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds only the qualifiers 'named' and 'persistent', which help characterise what is being listed but say nothing beyond that. With an output schema present, the lack of return-value detail is acceptable.

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 no filler, and the distinguishing qualifiers sit immediately after the resource. It is terse to the point of being slightly under-specified rather than padded, which keeps it at 4 rather than 5.

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?

This is a simple, zero-parameter, read-only list tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, so the description does not need to carry much. It states what is returned at a high level and nothing essential for correct invocation is missing; only an explicit ordering or scope note would push it higher.

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 no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline is 4. The description correctly mentions no arguments, which is consistent with the empty schema.

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 gives a clear verb (list) and resource (named persistent browser profiles), which is enough to distinguish it from destructive siblings like browse_profile_delete and from session tools like browse_session_start. It stops short of explicitly disambiguating itself from those siblings, so it lands just below the top mark.

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 this is the discovery step before browse_profile_delete or browse_session_start. There is no explicit when-to-use, no stated prerequisites, and no named alternative, so it is the minimum viable level.

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