browser_more

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered and the description need not restate it. What is missing is the behavior that annotations cannot express: whether the response is a name list, full JSON schemas, or explanatory text, and whether calling this tool is required before the named tools become invocable. With no output schema, that gap is significant for a discovery tool.

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?

It is a single sentence with no filler, and the enumeration of tool names is the useful payload. However, it is a verbless fragment ('The less common tools with their schemas, all callable by name:') that front-loads a vague category label rather than the action, so structure is serviceable but not clean.

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 discovery surface with no parameters, no output schema, and only a readOnlyHint annotation, the description should clarify the return shape and whether direct invocation is possible. It supplies tool names but no hint of what each does, and it omits entirely whether the schemas are returned by this call — leaving an agent unable to predict the result of invoking it.

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 and the baseline of 4 applies. Nothing in the description contradicts the empty schema.

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 enumerates the resources it covers (browser_mouse, browser_handoff, browser_history, etc.) and describes them as 'less common tools with their schemas,' but never states a verb or what invoking the tool actually does — return a catalog, print schemas, or merely advertise names. An agent can infer it is a discovery/listing surface, but the core action is left vague even though the named siblings are clearly distinguished from the visible browser_navigate/browser_click family.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The phrase 'all callable by name' hints that the underlying tools can be invoked directly without going through this tool, but the description never says whether browser_more is a prerequisite for discovering them or merely a convenience listing. The agent is left to guess whether to call this first or jump straight to browser_screenshot/browser_tabs.

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