browser_memory_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'list,' which implies a read-only operation, but it does not mention any side effects, permissions, or the format of the output. For a listing tool, this is minimal but lacks details like whether it returns a snapshot, count, or detailed object.

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, concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource. While extremely brief, it is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter tool, though it could add a bit more detail without becoming verbose.

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 tool, the description is arguably sufficient to understand the basic purpose. However, there is no output schema and no explanation of what 'page element memories' are, how they are structured, or whether the list is paginated. Given the rich set of sibling tools, more context about the return format or typical usage would improve completeness.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100% (empty properties object). Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies for zero parameters since there is nothing to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, but it also doesn't clarify what 'memories' means, which is a minor gap.

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 the resource 'saved page element memories,' which distinguishes it from sibling memory tools like browser_remember (save), browser_recall (retrieve), and browser_forget (delete). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with browser_recall, which could also be a retrieval operation, leaving slight ambiguity about what 'page element memories' specifically are.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when listing is appropriate, when to use browser_recall instead, or any prerequisites. The agent must infer usage from the name and description alone.

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