ghost_browser_list_installed

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates this is a read-only listing operation and scopes it to Chromium-family browsers, but it does not mention output format, sorting, paths, or any edge cases around detection, which would be useful for a no-annotation tool.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately identifies the action, resource, and scope. Every phrase earns its place, with the example browsers adding useful specificity without bloat.

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 zero-parameter discovery tool, the description is nearly complete: it tells the agent what will be listed and the scope of what counts as installed. Since there is no output schema, it could have clarified the exact return shape or data type, but this is a minor omission for such a straightforward operation.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to compensate for. The baseline score of 4 applies here because the description accurately reflects that the tool requires no inputs.

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 states a specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('Chromium-family browsers installed on this machine'), and gives concrete examples. This distinguishes it from sibling browser tools like ghost_browser_launch and ghost_browser_attach without needing to inspect their schemas.

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 'installed on this machine' implies this tool is used for discovery, likely before launching or attaching to a browser. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or mention that it should be used before other browser operations.

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