browser_resize

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, which signal that this tool mutates state. The description adds no extra behavioral context beyond the obvious action of resizing. It does not mention side effects, such as potential impact on layout or subsequent interactions, but given the annotations cover the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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, short sentence with no fluff. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource. While concise, it could be slightly more structured or informative, but it effectively communicates the basic purpose without waste.

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 simple tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it omits details like units (e.g., pixels) or any mention of how resizing affects the browser environment. Given the low complexity, the description covers the essentials but lacks depth that could aid an agent in correctly anticipating behavior.

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 100% for both parameters (width and height), each with a clear description. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, such as units or constraints. Per the baseline for high coverage, a 3 is correct.

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 resource ('browser window'), which is specific and unambiguous. It is distinct from sibling tools like browser_navigate or browser_click, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself by naming alternatives or scope. Since the verb and resource are precise, it earns a 4.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent has no additional information about appropriate use cases beyond the action itself, which is a significant gap.

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