inspect_homework_browser

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it discloses that only the empty-list structure is verified and that writes on nonempty assignments are out of scope until an adapter exists. That is safety-relevant context. It stops short of stating read-only status explicitly or describing side effects/return shape.

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?

It is short and front-loads the action before the constraint. The remaining sentences are terse but each carries a real constraint; the phrasing is slightly cryptic but not padded.

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 explained. But with four required, undocumented parameters and no annotations, the description should say more about where browser_id/tab_id/page_url come from. Scope and safety are covered; invocation mechanics are not.

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 0% and the description adds almost nothing: only 'fresh homework-list DOM' loosely maps to html_source, while browser_id, tab_id, and page_url are left entirely undocumented. The description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Inspect a fresh homework-list DOM') and explicitly separates itself from chapter/exam submit tools in the sibling list. It is not tautological, but it does not clarify the distinction from other inspect-type siblings such as inspect_owned_page or observe_course_browser.

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?

'Never reuse chapter/exam submit tools' and the note that nonempty assignments need their own observed adapter convey scope boundaries. However, there is no explicit statement of when to choose this tool over the many other inspection tools, so usage must be inferred from the 'fresh homework-list' framing.

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