List WebGL vendor/renderer pairs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds valuable non-obvious behavioral guidance about keeping WebGL1 and WebGL2 data in sync. This is exactly the kind of behavioral trait that goes beyond the structured 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?

Two sentences, with the first stating purpose and the second providing crucial usage guidance. No filler 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?

The description covers the tool's purpose and key behavioral rule, and annotations handle safety. However, it omits explanation of browser_version and the return format (no output schema), which leaves some gaps for a 3-parameter 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 description adds meaning for withMaximum (webgl2Maximum block) and implicitly for platform ('available for a platform'), but browser_version is entirely unexplained. With schema description coverage at only 33%, the description should compensate more for the undocumented parameters.

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?

Description clearly states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('GPU adapter combinations') with scope ('for a platform'). It distinguishes from sibling list tools by focusing on WebGL vendor/renderer pairs, and the title reinforces this.

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 clear context and a concrete usage rule: 'When swapping these into a fingerprint, always copy the vendor/renderer pair together...' This implies a fingerprint-customization use case. However, it does not mention alternatives or explicitly state when not to use this tool vs. get_fingerprint or other siblings.

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