browser_request_share

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden, and it delivers two meaningful behavioral facts: the operation blocks until the user chooses, and it preserves cookies/sign-in (avoiding re-authentication). It omits what happens on decline/timeout, which a blocking tool should clarify.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no waste. The parenthetical efficiently packs in the credential-preservation nuance without a second sentence.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, blocking behavior, and credential handling well. The main gap is what it returns (a tab identifier/handle) and the outcome if the user declines, which an agent would need to handle the result.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the schema to describe and nothing the description needs to compensate for.

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?

States a specific action (ask the user to pick an open integrated-browser tab to share) with the key effect (keeps cookies and sign-in). This is clearly distinguishable from all sibling browser_* tools, which act on the page rather than requesting user collaboration.

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 when this applies (when you need a tab the user is already signed into), but never states when to prefer it over alternatives like browser_open or browser_navigate, nor any exclusions. Usage is inferred rather than spelled out.

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