browser_list_allowed

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It clearly states the tool returns a list of allowed hosts and a boolean indicating whether all hosts are allowed, which fully describes its observable behavior. It does not reveal potential side effects, but none are implied for a list operation.

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 is direct and informative. Every word contributes value, and it is fully front-loaded with the action and subject.

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 tool with zero parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains both the primary output (list of hosts) and the additional flag (whether all hosts are allowed), leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 no need for parameter explanations. The description focuses on the output rather than inputs, which is appropriate. The baseline of 4 applies for a parameterless 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 a specific verb ('List') and a clear resource ('hosts the browser may navigate to') plus the additional detail about whether all hosts are allowed. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like browser_navigate (which performs navigation) and browser_allow_host/browser_disallow_host (which modify the allowed hosts).

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 for checking the current allowed-host configuration but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions or compare with browser_allow_host/browser_disallow_host, so the guidance is only implicit.

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