browser_get_metrics

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not explain what specific metrics are returned, whether a page must be open, potential side effects, or return format. This is a significant gap for a tool that queries browser internals.

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 phrase with no waste, but it is under-specified. It essentially restates the tool name in Chinese, lacking the detail needed to understand what 'performance metrics' entails. It is concise but not informative enough.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and a vague description, the tool is not adequately explained. Users cannot infer what metrics are retrieved, how they are formatted, or when this tool should be used relative to browser_get_coverage or other getters. The description is incomplete for a tool that likely returns complex performance data.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter semantics because there are none to explain.

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 '获取性能指标' (Get performance metrics) clearly states the verb (get/fetch) and resource (performance metrics). It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like browser_get_coverage, though it lacks additional scope details.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no mentions of prerequisites, context, or exclusions. The description is purely functional with no usage context.

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