browser_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently describes the tool's core behavior (listing installed Chromium browsers and their runtime status) and the specific status categories it reports. However, it does not disclose potential prerequisites, side effects, or limitations (e.g., whether it scans the system or relies on a pre-existing CDP connection), which prevents a higher score.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, immediately clarifying the tool's purpose. It includes essential details (browser types and status output) without any superfluous words or repetition.

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, parameterless tool, the description provides adequate context about what the tool does and what information it returns. However, it lacks detail on the exact structure of the output (e.g., whether it returns names, paths, or IDs) and does not reference related tools or use cases. Given the tool's low complexity and lack of output schema, this is sufficient but not exhaustive.

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 has zero parameters, and the schema is empty, giving 100% schema description coverage vacuously. With no parameters to document, the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and it does not attempt to 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?

The description clearly states the tool's action ('Liste tous les navigateurs Chromium installés') with specific browser examples (Chrome, Brave, Edge) and the information returned (status: running, CDP active). This is a specific verb-resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like browser_launch or browser_status, which imply targeted operations rather than a comprehensive listing.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention alternative tools like browser_status or browser_launch, nor does it explain scenarios where this tool is preferred. The use case is implied by the description but not stated, leaving the agent without clear selection criteria.

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