firefox_parse_sessions_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only states 'Parse Firefox session restore files,' which implies read-only reading but does not confirm side effects, file modifications, or how the session restore files are handled (e.g., decompression of jsonlz4). The typical path hint adds context but does not disclose behavior beyond the obvious parsing action. With no annotations, this is a significant transparency gap.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a helpful path example. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler. This is exemplary conciseness.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters and an output schema, so the description needn't explain return values. However, it does not mention session file specifics (e.g., that session restore files exist in multiple formats or are compressed) or any limitations. The profile path hint adds practical context, but overall the description is minimal for the tool's complexity. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 100%, so parameters are already well-documented (e.g., url, limit, title, file_name, profile_path). The tool description adds a concrete example for profile_path with a typical Windows path, enhancing that parameter's semantics. This is a small bonus, but the description does not explain parameter interactions or output details, keeping it at the baseline 3.

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 tool's function: 'Parse Firefox session restore files from a browser profile.' This is a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like firefox_parse_history_tool or firefox_parse_session_storage_tool by explicitly targeting session restore data. However, it does not explicitly call out alternatives or differentiate from other parse tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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 a typical profile path, which is helpful for locating input, but it gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., firefox_parse_history_tool for history). There is no mention of exclusions or scenarios where this tool is inappropriate. The usage context is implied by the tool's name and description, but not explicit.

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