list_installed_browsers

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses the tool's behavior: it lists installed browsers, returns each browser's name (as a string for open_link's browser param), running status, and system default. It does not mention potential performance impact or mutability, but the disclosure is sufficient for a read-only listing.

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 three sentences long and conveys all necessary information. It avoids unnecessary detail but could be slightly tightened (e.g., 'Recognized doesn't mean installed') but overall is efficient.

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?

Given zero parameters, no output schema, and a simple list operation, the description provides sufficient context about the return values (name, running status, default). It explains why this tool is needed (disambiguating recognized vs. installed), making it complete for its purpose.

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, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate given the lack of parameters.

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 clearly states the tool lists browsers actually installed on the machine, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'list_browser_profiles'. It specifies the exact verb 'list' and resource 'installed browsers', and provides context for when it should be used (before open_link).

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?

The description explicitly advises calling this tool before 'open_link' when unsure of browser availability, providing concrete guidance. It also explains the scope (27 recognized browsers) but does not explicitly state when not to use it, though the positive guidance is strong.

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