browser.get_auth_profile

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It says 'inspect' and 'metadata' but does not clarify if the tool is read-only, what side effects exist, or what storage-state metadata entails. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.

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 that efficiently conveys the core purpose. It is front-loaded and avoids redundancy. However, it could include slightly more detail (e.g., about the metadata) without losing conciseness.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is marginally adequate. It identifies the resource but does not describe the return value or behavior (e.g., what is included in 'storage-state metadata'). No output schema requires the description to cover this, but it does not.

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 zero description coverage for the parameter, and the description adds no additional meaning beyond 'one saved auth profile.' It does not explain valid values, format, or constraints (e.g., case sensitivity, special characters). The schema already provides a title and length constraints, but the description fails to compensate for the low 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 'Inspect one saved auth profile and its storage-state metadata,' which clearly identifies the action (inspect) and resource (one saved auth profile plus metadata). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_auth_profiles and save_auth_profile.

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 usage when needing details of a specific profile, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g., profile must exist), and no exclusions. It lacks context for appropriate use.

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