live_browser_roots

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only says 'List app.browser roots.' with no mention of side effects, rate limits, data freshness, or return format. This is insufficient for an agent to understand what 'roots' entails or if the operation has any constraints.

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 only two words ('List app.browser roots.'), which is extremely concise and fully front-loaded. However, it is so minimal that it borders on under-specification. For a no-parameter tool, it is acceptable but could benefit from a bit more context without being verbose.

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 the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate to convey the basic operation. However, the term 'roots' is not explained, and the agent lacks any context about the return value or the structure of the browser. This is the minimum viable completeness for a simple tool.

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 there is nothing to describe. The schema coverage is 100% (no parameters). The description adds no param information, but given the trivial parameter count, a baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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 the verb 'List' and the resource 'app.browser roots', clearly indicating this tool returns root items in a browser context. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'live_browser_search' or 'live_browser_load', leaving the scope slightly ambiguous but still clear enough for basic understanding.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'live_browser_search' or 'live_browser_load'. There are no examples of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name and description.

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