profiles_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: read-only (does not switch profiles or focus windows), volatile IDs on reconnect, name repetition or unavailability, and separate reporting of per-profile window errors. This is rich for an unannotated tool, though rate limits or exact response structure are not covered.

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 front-loaded with purpose and usage, then moves to behavioral caveats. It is slightly verbose but every sentence contributes relevant information; no wasted words.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. The description covers purpose, usage, parameter meaning, and behavioral traits (IDs changing, name ambiguity, error handling). It is nearly complete for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already defines the 'populate' parameter. The description adds a use-case hint ('inspect tab titles/URLs to choose a target; False omits tabs'), but this largely paraphrases the schema and does not introduce substantial new semantic detail.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Discover connected Firefox profiles, their real names and windows'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like list_windows or containers_list. It also explicitly states the scope of IDs (window, tab, group, container, monitor) belonging to that profile.

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?

It provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this first to choose a profile_id for browser commands, and again after a disconnect or server restart.' It also names an alternative ('Use list_windows for windows in one known profile'), making the routing decision unambiguous.

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