Browser info

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

readOnlyHint=true already declares the safety profile, so the description only needs to add context. It usefully signals that the call probes privileged chrome-context reachability, which hints at the environment's automation capability, but says nothing about failure modes when no browser is connected.

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 zero filler, naming the target and the three reported values in the order an agent would care about them.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return values, and it does so for all three fields. Only the error/absent-browser behavior is unstated, a minor gap for a trivial diagnostics call.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The enumerated return fields compensate slightly by clarifying what the no-arg call yields.

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 ('Report') and resource ('the connected Firefox') and enumerates exactly what is returned: version, window count, and privileged chrome-context reachability. This is clearly distinct from mutation siblings, though the description does not explicitly differentiate it from near-neighbors like browser_selfcheck or browser_profile_info.

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?

No guidance on when to call this versus alternatives such as browser_selfcheck, browser_profile_info, or browser_screen_info, all of which could plausibly answer adjacent questions. The agent must infer the use case from the field list alone.

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