Request browser access

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), so the description goes further with a negative-scope list clarifying it never grants access, changes duration, resumes control, or requests URLs/capabilities. This tells the agent what the tool does NOT do, which is genuinely additive beyond the annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action in the first sentence and a supporting negative-scope clause second. Efficient, though the enumerated negative list is somewhat long relative to the tool's simplicity.

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 simple, single-optional-parameter, non-output-schema tool, the description plus annotations supply enough to call it correctly. The main residual gap is that it doesn't position itself relative to the many sibling browser tools.

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% and the single parameter (browser_instance_id) is fully documented in the schema as needed only when several profiles are connected. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 action (asking Firefox to draw the user's attention to the Zamery Browser panel) so the agent knows this is a user-prompt/attention request, not a data operation. It does not, however, name or distinguish itself from siblings like browser_handoff or browser_status.

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?

Usage is only implied by the action description; there is no explicit 'use this when X, use browser_handoff when Y' guidance or prerequisite statement. An agent must infer the context from the purpose text alone.

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