browser_system_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden, and 'Get' implies a non-mutating read with no side effects, which is the main risk-relevant fact. It also discloses the concrete payload contents, which is meaningful for a zero-parameter tool. It stops short of stating that nothing is written or whether the result is stable per session.

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 sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and the returned fields listed compactly after the colon. No filler, no restatement of the tool name, nothing that could be trimmed.

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 must convey the return contents, and it does so by enumerating the five information categories. It is slightly thin on the shape of the response (flat object vs. nested memory section) but is sufficient for a no-input diagnostic getter.

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 tool takes no parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain inputs and correctly does not invent any.

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?

Specific verb ('Get') plus a clearly-scoped resource ('browser information') and an enumeration of the exact fields returned: Chrome version, V8 version, User-Agent, protocol version, memory metrics. It overlaps partially with the sibling browser_performance_metrics, but the version/UA fields make the distinction inferable without naming the alternative.

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?

No statement of when to call this rather than browser_performance_metrics, browser_get_cookies, or any other read-only browser inspector. There are no preconditions noted (e.g. must a page be loaded, must a browser context exist), leaving the agent to infer usage entirely.

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