ie_browser_profiles

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context by limiting results to profile names/IDs and explicitly excluding cookie values, which is a key privacy-related behavioral guarantee. It does not detail output ordering or empty-result behavior, but the output schema covers the return shape.

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?

A single sentence front-loads the action and resource, then appends the important limitation. There is no filler or repetition of schema or annotation 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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only list tool with strong annotations and an output schema, the description gives the essential purpose and a notable exclusion ('no cookie values'). Nothing critical is missing for an agent to call it correctly.

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?

This tool has zero parameters, so the input schema is already complete and there is no parameter behavior to explain. The description's statement about listing names/IDs without cookies clarifies the result scope instead, matching the baseline for zero-parameter tools.

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?

Uses a specific verb 'List' with a clear resource ('normal Chrome/Brave/Edge/Chromium profile names and IDs'), and the appended 'no cookie values' clarifies the intended scope. This differentiates it from sibling ie_* auth/login tools, which concern authentication state rather than profile enumeration.

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 clearly states what the tool is for, so an agent can select it when profile enumeration is needed, and the 'no cookie values' note sets a boundary. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when to prefer a sibling tool, so it falls just short of full guidance.

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