browser_install

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool downloads and installs the browser binary, which is sufficient. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., overwriting existing installation) or what happens if already installed, leaving some ambiguity.

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 extremely concise: three sentences, front-loaded with the key purpose, and no wasted words. Every sentence adds necessary 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?

Given zero parameters, an output schema (implied), and no annotations, the description covers the essential action and return type. It could be more complete by noting error handling or success/failure indicators, but it is adequate for a simple installation tool.

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, so the description naturally provides all needed context. The schema coverage is 100%, meaning no additional parameter explanation is required. The description adds value by explaining the installation action.

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 installs the Camoufox browser, with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., browser_navigate) which are browser actions, not installation.

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 explicitly tells when to call this tool: 'if you get an error about the browser not being installed'. This provides clear context, though it does not mention when not to use it or alternatives.

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