browser_resize

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

The annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description adds no extra behavioral context, such as whether the resize affects the viewport only, whether it is a synchronous operation, or any side effects. Given that annotations are present, the description carries a lower burden, but it still contributes nothing beyond the name.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It is appropriately minimal for a simple action, and the structure is immediately readable and front-loaded.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (two numeric parameters, no output schema), the description and schema together provide what an agent needs to invoke it. The action is clear, parameters are self-explanatory, and annotations cover the safety hints. No critical information is missing, though a note about units or scope (e.g., viewport) would make it more complete.

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 input schema describes both width and height with clear explanations ('Width of the browser window', 'Height of the browser window'), so schema coverage is 100%. The description itself does not add any extra semantic detail about units, constraints, or how these parameters are interpreted, justifying the baseline score of 3.

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 action ('Resize') and the target resource ('the browser window'). It is specific enough to distinguish from siblings like browser_click or browser_navigate, though it does not elaborate on any nuance such as viewport vs. window frame.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of typical use cases (e.g., testing responsive layouts) or any conditions that would make another tool more appropriate. The lack of any contextual hint leaves the agent to infer usage.

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