tabs_groups_query

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and mostly succeeds: it discloses the Firefox 139+ version gate, the mandatory profile_id, and that object IDs are profile-local and must never be reused elsewhere — a real correctness hazard. It doesn't cover ordering, scale, or whether results span private/container windows, which is why it isn't a 5.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first line, followed by the differentiator against tabs_group and the prerequisite note. Four short sentences with no filler; the stray line break inside the first paragraph is cosmetic only.

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 don't need explaining, and the remaining description covers the two things that matter for a query tool: the version prerequisite and the profile-scoping of IDs. Filter capabilities are delegated to the schema, which is a reasonable split.

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 already 80%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns extra by explaining why profile_id is required, where to source it (profiles_list), and the critical semantic that all returned IDs are scoped to that profile. That profile-scoping rule is nowhere in the schema and directly changes how callers chain parameters.

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 verb and resource ('List tab groups with their IDs') plus scope ('in every window or filtered'), which immediately separates it from create/mutate siblings like tabs_group and tabs_groups_update. It also explains the tool's raison d'être relative to tabs_group, so an agent can distinguish it without opening schemas.

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?

Gives explicit routing logic: use this when you need a group ID that tabs_group did not return. Prerequisites are spelled out ('profile_id is required: obtain it from profiles_list'). It stops short of naming exclusions (e.g. 'do not use to modify groups — see tabs_groups_update'), so not quite a 5.

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