browser_resolve_tag

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation, what happens if the tag is unknown or maps to multiple tabs, or what the resolved value looks like on failure. Only the terse purpose is conveyed.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though arguably under-specified rather than maximally informative for the space available.

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 one-parameter lookup with no annotations or output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and the tag prerequisite. It is missing the failure/multi-match behavior an agent would need for correct invocation.

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% for the single 'name' parameter, so the description must compensate. The reference to 'a tag set via browser_tag_tab' loosely implies name is the tag identifier, but it adds no format, case-sensitivity, or matching semantics beyond that inference.

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 (look up) and resource (tab id for a tag), which is enough to distinguish it from siblings like browser_list_tags and browser_untag_tab. It also names the companion tool browser_tag_tab that creates the tag, aiding differentiation.

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 phrase 'for a tag set via browser_tag_tab' implies the prerequisite that the tag must already exist, which is useful usage context. However, it never states when to prefer this over browser_tabs or browser_list_tags, and no exclusions are given.

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