browser.get_auth_profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the term 'inspect' and mentions 'storage-state metadata,' which hints at the return type but doesn't elaborate on behavior (e.g., error if profile doesn't exist). It adds some context but not significantly beyond 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, direct sentence that gets to the point. It is appropriately concise and front-loaded with the key action. However, it may be too brief given the lack of parameter and usage details, earning a 4 rather than a perfect 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?

Given the low schema coverage (0%), no output schema, and only one parameter, the description is incomplete. It does not describe the return format, prerequisites (profile must exist), or how 'storage-state metadata' relates to the tool's output. An agent would struggle to use this tool effectively without additional context.

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% coverage (no description for the 'profile_name' parameter), and the tool description does not mention the parameter at all. The agent receives no guidance on what values are valid or how to obtain them (e.g., from 'list_auth_profiles'). This is a critical gap for a single-parameter tool.

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 the verb 'inspect' and identifies the resource as 'one saved auth profile and its storage-state metadata.' It clearly indicates a read operation on a single profile, but does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like 'list_auth_profiles' which lists all profiles. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden for purpose, and it succeeds in being specific.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention that one should first use 'list_auth_profiles' to get profile names, or that it's only for inspecting existing profiles (not creating). Without such context, the agent may misuse the tool.

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