browser_skill

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It discloses behavior for different argument values (no name vs. full=True) but does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only or safe. Given the simple documentation-loading nature, this is adequate but not rich.

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 compact and well-structured with labeled sections (Purpose, Constraints, Example). It front-loads the core purpose in the first phrase and contains no filler or redundancy.

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 only two optional parameters, an output schema present, and a self-contained documentation purpose, the description covers the essential usage. It doesn't elaborate on error conditions or detailed return shapes, but those are less critical for this tool.

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 0%, but the description compensates by explaining 'name' (default 'core') and 'full' (default true) with their effects, plus an example call. It clarifies the primary combinations, though not every edge case.

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 'Load agent-browser's own built-in skill documentation' with a specific verb and resource, differentiating it from sibling browser_* tools that handle navigation, reading, or execution. The scope is unambiguous.

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?

It provides concrete usage guidance: 'With no name it lists available skills; name='core' (default) with full=True returns the complete command reference.' This explains when to use the tool and how to call it, though it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it.

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