List the browser-side tools

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses that the tool is read-only and has no side effects, and explains its default operational behavior (cost-splitting via delegating work to a worker). This goes beyond the bare 'list tools' semantics.

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 compact but information-dense: purpose is front-loaded, followed by concrete scope and examples, then usage decision guidance. Every sentence earns its place without padding.

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 listing tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs: what will be listed, what categories are included, the default execution path, the alternative direct-call route, and the read-only safety profile. Nothing critical is missing.

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 is complete, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning because none is needed; it appropriately focuses on the output contents instead.

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 states a specific verb and resource: '列出浏览器侧实际可用的工具清单' with explicit output fields (name/description/confirmation/parameters). It also distinguishes itself from agent_call_tool by framing the tool as the listing step before direct invocation, so an agent can tell it apart from its siblings.

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 explicitly says '先看这个再决定委派还是直调' — use this tool first to decide between delegation and direct invocation. It also names the alternative agent_call_tool and explains the default delegation path, giving clear when-to-use and how-to-route guidance.

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