List browser profiles

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds genuinely useful behavioral detail: cookie values are never returned and each profile reports its sites and cookie counts, which tells the agent what it can and cannot learn from this call.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, then the domain concept, then the return-value caveat. 'Read operation' is mildly redundant with readOnlyHint but costs almost nothing.

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 usefully summarizes the return shape (profiles with sites and cookie counts, no cookie values), which is exactly what an agent needs. The only gap is that the `account` parameter's role in identity selection goes unmentioned in the description, though the schema covers it.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema; per the rubric that sets a baseline of 3. The description reinforces `team_id`'s effect ('instead of your personal ones') but adds no syntax, format, or defaulting detail beyond the schema, and never mentions the `account` parameter.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('List the browser profiles') with scope disambiguation built in: personal profiles by default, or a team's via `team_id`. The second sentence explains what a browser profile actually is, which helps an agent distinguish this from cookie-related siblings like import_browser_profile_cookies.

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?

Clear context for when to use it: to enumerate profiles you own, or to enumerate a team's profiles when passing `team_id`. No explicit exclusions or named alternative tools (e.g., it doesn't say to prefer this over list_teams for team lookup), so it stops short of a full 5.

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