List Tracked Browsers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds behavioral context by specifying the output structure (list of browsers with fields) and the response_format parameter. No contradiction with 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?

The description is concise with a clear structure: one-line purpose, Args section, Returns section, and examples. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. Front-loaded with the main action.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully covers the return format by listing fields (id, name, type, version, release date) and provides usage examples. The single optional parameter is well-documented. Adequate for the tool's simplicity.

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 covers 100% of parameters with detailed descriptions (e.g., 'Output format: markdown for human-readable or json for structured data'). The description only adds the default value and example usage, providing marginal additional value beyond the schema.

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 verb 'List' and resource 'browsers', specifies scope 'all', and lists the returned fields (current versions, release dates). It distinguishes from sibling tools like compat_check (which checks support) and compat_list_baseline (which lists baselines).

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 examples like 'What browsers are tracked?' and 'List all browser versions' that imply appropriate use cases. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or mention alternatives like compat_search for filtered queries.

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