Purroxy

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: it's a read operation (implied by 'List'), specifies the return format (capability details), and states a prerequisite (Purroxy app must be running). However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like rate limits, error handling, or data freshness, leaving some behavioral aspects uncovered.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: it starts with the core purpose, then details the return data, usage context, and prerequisite in three concise sentences. Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy, making it highly efficient and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is largely complete: it covers purpose, usage, return data, and prerequisites. However, without an output schema, it could benefit from more detail on the return structure (e.g., format, pagination), but the mention of specific fields mitigates this gap adequately for this simple tool.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 4 as per the rules for zero parameters. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, but it does mention 'required parameters' as part of the return data, which aligns with the schema's lack of inputs. No additional value is needed or provided beyond the 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 clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('List all browser automation capabilities') and resources ('recorded in Purroxy'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools by mentioning its role in discovery before using purroxy_run_capability. It explicitly names the returned fields (name, description, target website, required parameters), making the purpose highly specific and differentiated.

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 provides explicit usage guidelines: it states when to use this tool ('Call this first to discover what automations are available before executing one with purroxy_run_capability'), names the alternative tool (purroxy_run_capability), and includes prerequisites ('Requires the Purroxy desktop app to be running'). This gives clear context and exclusions for effective tool selection.

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