get_bookmarks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is already covered. The description adds one behavioral fact beyond annotations ('Works with no tabs open'), but it does not explain session_id behavior or other runtime behavior, so the added transparency is minimal.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by a relevant availability condition. There is no filler and every word earns its place.

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 tool with no required parameters, rich read-only annotations, and an output schema, the description gives enough context to call it correctly, including the no-tabs-needed condition. The only completeness gap is the undocumented session_id semantics, which is mitigated by it being optional with a null default.

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 only parameter, session_id, has no schema description (schema_description_coverage is 0%) and the description never mentions it. Because coverage is low, the description needed to compensate, and it does not. The parameter is optional with a default null, so the harm is limited, but semantics are entirely unexplained.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Return the browser bookmark tree') and adds a scoping condition ('Works with no tabs open'). It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like create_bookmark and remove_bookmark because it clearly identifies the read operation and the bookmark resource, not tabs.

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 phrase 'Works with no tabs open' communicates a concrete context in which this tool can be used, distinguishing it from tab-oriented siblings (list_tabs, switch_tab, etc.). It does not name explicit alternatives or exclusions, but the use case is clear for a simple read-only bookmark query.

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