Retrieves the list of browser instances available for the current user with filtering and pagination options.

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile, so the bar is lower. The description nonetheless adds a genuinely non-derivable constraint: results apply only to browser instances launched via the API. It does not, however, describe the returned payload or pagination behavior beyond what the schema states.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and ending on the high-value scope caveat. Mostly tight, with minor redundancy in 'with detailed information' that adds little.

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 what is returned, yet 'detailed information' is vague and the pagination semantics (start/total interplay, default 1000) are left to the schema. For a 6-parameter list tool with no output schema, this is adequate but leaves a real gap in return-value expectations.

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 description coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already documented with defaults and types (start, total, sorting, processId, profileId, workspaceId). The description's mention of profile/process filtering, sorting, and limiting simply restates the schema and adds no syntax or format detail. Baseline 3 applies.

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 ('returns the list') and resource ('browser processes available for the current user'), so the core purpose is unambiguous. However, it never distinguishes itself from the singular sibling get_running_browser_instance, and it drifts between 'browser processes' and the tool name 'browser instances', which muddies the boundary with that sibling.

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 implies usage by enumerating the filtering, sorting, and limiting options, which suggests a list/query scenario. But there is no explicit guidance on when to call this versus get_running_browser_instance in the sibling set, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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