browser_list_tabs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It indicates a read-only operation (listing), but does not mention potential errors, prerequisites (e.g., browser must be running with debugging enabled), or any side effects. For a simple list, this is adequate but not richly transparent.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys exactly what the tool does without any fluff. Every word earns its place, and there is no unnecessary repetition of schema information.

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 listing tool with no output schema and well-documented parameters, the description is nearly complete. It could mention that it relies on the browser debugging port, but this is implicitly clear from the schema. Overall, it adequately covers the tool's purpose and requirements.

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 input schema fully documents both parameters (host and port) with defaults and descriptions, achieving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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: listing all available browser tabs that can be connected to. It uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('available browser tabs'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like browser_connect and browser_launch by focusing on listing connectable tabs.

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 implies this is a precursor to connecting ('that can be connected to'), but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus browser_connect or other sibling tools. It lacks clear 'when/when-not' guidance, though the purpose is contextually clear enough for a simple listing tool.

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