List browser guest links

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, and the description adds genuinely new context: owner-only authorization, local-state-only sourcing, and that no OIDC or tailnet account is required. These auth/source details go beyond the annotations.

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?

Four short, front-loaded sentences with the owner-only constraint first. Slightly jargon-heavy ('local state', 'Funnel availability') but no wasted filler.

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?

Output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the annotations plus description cover safety and auth. The note that 'tokens are shown only when explicitly requested' is slightly odd for a tool with no parameters to request them, a minor unexplained gap.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the 4 baseline applies; the schema is trivially complete and nothing about parameter meaning is needed.

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+resource ('list browser guest grants') scoped to one app, and flags the owner-only constraint. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like guest_show or invite_list, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Implied usage is present ('Uses local state only; Funnel availability is reported separately'), which hints at scope, but no alternative tool is named and there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance relative to guest_show or the invite_* tools.

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