브라우저 가용성 확인

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description is consistent with that. It adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: the ordered browser fallback chain (Chrome→Edge→Playwright chromium) and the precondition relationship with audit_url.

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 sentence that states both the tool's purpose and its usage context with zero wasted words. The key fact (check before audit_url) is prominent and easy to parse.

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 tool is simple: no required parameters, a fully documented optional parameter, an output schema present, and read-only annotations. The description covers the essential workflow placement and browser scope, so nothing critical is missing.

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 sole parameter refresh is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage), so the description need not repeat it. With schema coverage this high, the baseline of 3 applies; the description adds no parameter-level meaning but does not need to.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: it checks whether the browser that audit_url will use (Chrome→Edge→Playwright chromium) is installed. It also names the related sibling audit_url, making the tool's role in the workflow immediately distinguishable.

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 explicitly instructs the agent to run this check before calling audit_url. This is a clear, actionable when-to-use directive that leaves no ambiguity about placement in the workflow.

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