probe_runtime_capabilities

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

The readOnlyHint annotation declares the operation safe, lowering the transparency bar. The description adds some behavioral context ('compare with Node rebuild assumptions') but does not explain what probing entails (e.g., whether it executes scripts, reads settings, or returns detailed reports). It is adequate but not rich.

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 with no wasted words. It conveys the core action and comparison in a compact form, earning high marks for efficiency.

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?

Despite having a simple schema and read-only annotation, the description is too vague. It does not indicate what kind of output to expect (no output schema) or what prerequisites exist (e.g., must a page be selected?). This lack of completeness makes it difficult for an agent to confidently invoke the tool.

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 schema has one parameter (targetPageIdx) with zero description coverage (0%). The description does not mention or explain this parameter, providing no additional meaning beyond the schema's field name and type. The agent is left without guidance on what targetPageIdx refers to.

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 clearly identifies the tool's purpose: to probe browser runtime capabilities and compare them with Node rebuild assumptions. This is a specific verb+resource pair that distinguishes it from more generic tools like diagnose_environment, though not explicitly named.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The usage is only implied by the name and purpose, but no when-to-use or when-not-to-use context is given, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate scenario.

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