explain_current_screenSummarise the current portal page: URL, text excerpt, fillable fields, Protocol hint, signedInLikely.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sessionId | Yes | Ephemeral co-pilot session id returned by start_browser_session. Example: 8f3c2a1b-4d5e-6789-abcd-ef0123456789 |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| boundary | Yes | Educational / non-advice boundary when the tool includes one |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the readOnly and idempotent annotations, the description discloses that the tool inspects the current page without navigating and reports an inferred, non-definitive signedInLikely signal. This adds useful behavioral context about the summary's nature and limitations.
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 entire description is one efficient sentence that front-loads the action and scope, then lists the returned dimensions with no filler or unnecessary repetition.
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 one well-documented sessionId parameter, an output schema present, and strong readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description provides everything needed for correct invocation. Session dependency is implied by 'current portal page' and the required sessionId.
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 coverage is 100% and the only parameter, sessionId, is already fully described in the schema with an example. The tool description adds no parameter detail, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 begins with a specific verb ('Summarise') tied to a concrete resource ('current portal page') and enumerates the exact contents of the summary: URL, text excerpt, fillable fields, Protocol hint, and signedInLikely. This clearly separates it from siblings like open_portal or list_fillable_fields.
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 indirectly implies usage on the current portal page, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer this summary over sibling tools such as list_fillable_fields or prepare_portal_fill. No exclusions or alternative routing are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool occupies a distinct step in the intake-to-submission pipeline, with clearly paired tools like prepare_submit_confirmation/confirm_and_submit. A few knowledge/checklist tools such as get_module_playbook, get_skill, and search_book could overlap at the margins, but their descriptions separate modules, workflow skills, and cited passages well enough.
The set overwhelmingly follows lower_snake_case action_object naming like get_*, list_*, prepare_*, fill_fields, and open_portal. Minor deviations such as confirm_and_submit and wait_for_user_ready are still imperative and readable, so the naming remains predictable overall.
At 25 tools, the server sits at the top of the 'heavy but borderline' range. The broad advisory/portal-automation scope mostly justifies the count, but several browser-session helpers and guidance/checklist tools could plausibly be consolidated without losing core capability.
The tool surface covers the full workflow: intake, risk assessment, guidance, module/skill selection, drafting and review bundles, self-serve or assisted browsing, form filling, and guarded submission. Minor gaps like updating intake data or checking post-submission status are workable rather than fatal.