List connected browsers

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the returned fields and the source of the data (machine bridge), which is helpful, but does not explicitly confirm the operation is read-only, nor mention any auth, permission, or failure/empty-case behavior. Adequate but with clear gaps for a no-annotation 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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the enumeration of returned fields front-loaded and the call-first guidance following. Every clause earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema and no input parameters, so the description must carry the whole load. It compensates by listing the fields each instance exposes, but could go further on safety/error behavior and explicit read-only status.

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 baseline is 4. The description still adds value by naming the keys returned (instanceId, label) that are later consumed as the `browser` argument elsewhere, which is meaningful cross-tool context despite no input to document.

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 a specific verb and resource ("List every Chrome ... connected to this machine's bridge") and enumerates what each entry contains (instanceId, label, reachability, tab count). This distinguishes it from siblings like browser_list_tabs (tabs within one browser) and browser_status, letting an agent pick it 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?

It gives an explicit trigger ("Call this first when more than one browser may be connected") and explains the downstream payoff (passing instanceId or label as `browser` to browser tools). It does not name a concrete alternative tool or state when-not-to-use, so it falls short of a 5.

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