Get Browser Permission

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds behavioral nuance by clarifying that the query does not trigger a system prompt, and it scopes the operation to the current document origin. This goes beyond the annotations and provides useful context for the agent, though it could mention other traits like returned states or secure-context requirements.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that leads with the action verb and quickly covers the key details: resource, scope, and behavioral trait. There is no redundancy or filler.

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 single-parameter read-only tool, the description together with annotations (readOnly, idempotent) and the presence of an output schema fully covers the necessary context. It states what the tool does, its scope, and that it avoids prompting, which is sufficient for an agent to select and use it correctly.

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 schema coverage is 0%, and the description only says 'one browser permission state' which maps to the single 'permission' parameter. The enum values in the schema already enumerate possible permissions, so the description adds minimal meaning. Since the parameter is straightforward and the tool is simple, a baseline of 3 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 clearly states the action ('Query'), the resource ('browser permission state'), and the scope ('for the current document origin'). It also differentiates from sibling tools like browser_permission_set by noting that it operates 'without opening an operating-system prompt,' making its purpose distinct and unambiguous.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: to query the permission state for the current origin. The phrase 'without opening a prompt' implies it is for non-intrusive checks, complementing browser_permission_set. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, so it stops short of a perfect score.

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