list_browser_roots

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the 'Read-only' clause earns no credit. What does add value is the disclosure of return content ('observed availability and immediate child counts') and the explicit boundary against cloud/filesystem sources, which tells the agent this reflects live host state rather than an exhaustive inventory.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and payload before the scope exclusions. No filler and no repetition of schema or annotation content beyond the minimal safety note.

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 parameterless, annotation-covered list tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope boundaries and the shape of what comes back. The only omission is any note on result size or ordering, which is minor given there is nothing to configure.

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 the baseline of 4 applies; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and it correctly avoids inventing filters.

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 and resource ('List Live's general browser roots') plus the payload it returns (availability, immediate child counts). The closing sentence actively separates it from Splice cloud search and filesystem inventory, so an agent can place it against siblings like list_local_splice_roots and search_browser_roots without opening a schema.

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 exclusions ('not Splice cloud search or a filesystem inventory') implicitly indicate the right domain, but no sibling is named and there is no positive statement of when to call this versus search_browser_roots or get_browser_items. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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