browser_list_resources

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden and successfully discloses critical behavioral traits: the '[Disabled]' status, that it returns cached resources without re-fetching, and enumerates all 16 valid CDP resource type values. It misses explicit read-only/safety declarations and error conditions, preventing a perfect 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?

Every sentence earns its place: status/purpose, behavioral scope (cache), usage examples, valid enum reference, and workflow pairing. The information is front-loaded with the '[Disabled]' warning and primary action first, followed by operational details and reference data. The enum list is dense but necessary given the lack of schema constraints.

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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately explains the conceptual return (cached resources list) and provides the complete type enumeration necessary for successful invocation. It appropriately defers content retrieval details to the paired tool. It lacks explicit return structure description, but remains complete enough for agent selection and basic operation.

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?

While the schema has 100% coverage (baseline 3), the description adds significant value by providing concrete usage examples for the 'type' parameter ('Script' for API analysis) and listing all valid CDP resource type values that the schema lacks as an enum constraint, effectively compensating for schema limitations.

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 specific action (List) and resource (resources loaded by a page), including examples (scripts, stylesheets, images). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying it returns cached resources versus live network requests, and explicitly pairs with browser_get_resource_content for content retrieval.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance with concrete examples: 'Use the type filter "Script" to find JavaScript files for API analysis, or "Stylesheet" for CSS.' Also clearly directs the workflow: 'Pair with browser_get_resource_content to read the source,' effectively distinguishing this listing tool from the content-fetching sibling.

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