browser_skills

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 behavioral disclosure. 'List/get' implies read-only, but the description does not confirm that, nor does it disclose any side effects, permissions, return format, or error behavior. This is a complete lack of transparency.

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 extremely short ('List/get skills') and can be considered concise, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately sized. It is a fragment that conveys no actionable detail, making it closer to the 'process' example of under-specification than a genuinely concise description.

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?

With 3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and a two-word description, the tool is completely under-specified. An agent has no idea what a 'skill' is, what 'action' values are valid, how to list vs get, or what the response looks like. This is inadequate for safe and correct invocation.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema documents all three parameters. Per the baseline rule, a score of 3 is appropriate. However, the description adds no semantic clarity beyond the schema – it does not explain how 'all', 'name', and 'action' interact, nor does it clarify the required 'action' parameter's meaning beyond the vague 'Skills action'.

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 verb 'list/get' and an object 'skills', but 'skills' is undefined and ambiguous in the browser tool context. It is not a tautology, but it is too vague to distinguish this tool from anything else – it merely hints at a capability without explaining what a 'skill' is or how this tool differs from the dozens of other browser_* siblings.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool, when to use 'list' vs 'get', or any alternatives. The description does not provide context, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent is left without any decision framework for selecting this tool.

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