browser_iframes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses part of the return shape (src plus same-origin/accessible flags), which is useful, but says nothing about whether this is a read-only snapshot, which frame context it reads from, or how cross-origin frames are handled.

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?

A single tight sentence with the resource and returned fields front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity is what leaves the other gaps unfilled.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully names the returned fields, which is the minimum needed to predict the result. However, the tab-targeting behavior of the only parameter is left entirely unexplained, so an agent cannot fully call 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?

Schema coverage is 0% and the single tab_id parameter is undocumented in both schema and description. The description never explains that tab_id defaults to null or which tab is targeted when omitted, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 all iframes') plus the payload fields returned (src, same-origin/accessible flags), which distinguishes it from DOM-scraping siblings like browser_dom or browser_query. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as browser_dom, browser_html or browser_query for frame inspection. The agent must infer the scope from the name alone.

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