Fast GUI capabilities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the tool returns adapters, policy, limits, and browser mode, which is useful but superficial. It does not disclose whether these values are static, dynamic, or how they might be correlated.

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 one short sentence with no filler, and the main output ('Return adapters, policy, limits, and browser mode') is front-loaded. It is extremely concise, though this brevity comes at the cost of missing useful detail, which is captured in other dimensions.

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, yet the description does not explain the structure or format of the returned policy, limits, adapters, or browser mode. The trace parameter is also left unexplained. For an agent to correctly interpret the output, additional context is needed; the current description is incomplete for a tool with no output schema.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not mention the 'trace' parameter at all. An agent cannot determine what the trace object is for, when to provide it, or how it affects behavior. With zero schema descriptions and no compensatory explanation, the parameter remains meaningless.

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 uses the specific verb 'Return' and lists concrete resources: adapters, policy, limits, and browser mode. This distinguishes it from sibling action tools like open_url or close_target, making its role as a read-only capability query clear. The terms 'policy' and 'limits' remain somewhat ambiguous, but the core purpose is understandable.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any context or exclusions. There is no statement about selecting it when an agent needs capability information or avoiding it for target manipulation, so usage must be inferred from the name and title alone.

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