获取环境浏览器访问信息

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context by specifying the return fields (url, username, password) and the intended reuse in automation tools, which goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 concise and front-loaded with a one-sentence summary, followed by a succinct numbered usage flow. Each sentence contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and usage, with no redundancy.

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 one parameter, strong annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the return values and how to use them, which is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool. Minor gaps like error handling for invalid env names exist but do not undermine completeness.

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% for the single 'env' parameter, which already explains that it must match an environment name from envmgr_list. The description does not add any extra parameter meanings, aligning with the baseline 3 for high coverage.

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 explicitly states 'returns browser access URL and authentication credentials for the specified environment,' which is a specific verb+resource pairing. It also distinguishes itself from siblings (envmgr_list, envmgr_ssh) by focusing on browser automation access and usage flow.

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 includes a clear usage flow: call this tool to get URL/username/password, then use browser automation tools like Playwright. It implies the intended context but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives (e.g., 'use envmgr_ssh for SSH access'), so it falls short of a 5.

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