List Browser Targets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the action ('List') but lacks behavioral details such as whether this requires an active browser connection, if it's read-only (implied but not confirmed), what the output format looks like (e.g., list of objects with IDs), or any rate limits. The description is minimal and doesn't compensate for the absence of 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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('List all available browser targets') and adds clarifying examples ('pages, service workers, etc.') without unnecessary details. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, 100% schema coverage, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks context on behavioral aspects like connection requirements, output format, or error handling. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should provide more guidance on what to expect after invocation, but it does not, leaving gaps for an AI agent.

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%, with the single parameter 'port' fully documented in the schema as 'Chrome CDP port' with a default. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining why the port matters or how it relates to targets. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.

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 ('all available browser targets'), with examples of what targets include ('pages, service workers, etc.'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'execute_js' or 'navigate' by focusing on enumeration rather than interaction or navigation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_console_logs', which might also involve listing logs from targets, slightly reducing specificity.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a browser instance connected), exclusions (e.g., not for modifying targets), or suggest sibling tools like 'navigate' for interacting with listed pages. Usage is implied as a starting point for target selection but not explicitly stated.

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