browser_run_log

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool optionally writes a JSON file, which is useful, but it does not say whether writing overwrites an existing file, whether the operation requires permissions, how large the log may be, or whether reading the log clears it.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every clause adds information: the return value and the optional file-write behavior.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, for a tool with a file-writing side effect and a parameter at 0% schema coverage, the description omits when to use it, how writing behaves, and what the path should point to.

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%, so the schema alone gives little meaning to 'path' beyond being an optional string defaulting to empty. The description compensates by explaining that a path causes the log to be written to a JSON file, though it does not clarify whether the path is a file or directory, overwrite behavior, or extension handling.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Return the full structured stage log.' It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish itself from nearby diagnostic siblings such as browser_status, runtime_health, or implementation_status.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many other browser and status tools, nor any preconditions or exclusions. The only implied usage is retrieving a stage log, which the name already suggests.

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