workbench_browser_inspect

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Read' signals a non-mutating operation and 'visible job page' clarifies what is observed, but it does not explain the output format, whether a browser session must be active, or any other behavioral nuances.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, front-loading the main verb and resource, and ending with the use case. Every word contributes to the agent's understanding.

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 read-only tool with one optional parameter, the description is mostly adequate. However, it does not explain what the return value looks like (no output schema exists) or mention any prerequisite like having a browser started, which could matter given the browser_* sibling tools.

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 schema has a single optional job_id with 0% description coverage. The description's mention of 'job page or default page' implies that job_id selects a specific job page while omission uses the default page, adding meaning beyond the schema. However, this relationship is not stated explicitly.

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 action ('Read') and a resource ('the visible job page or default page'), with a clear diagnostic purpose ('for diagnosing a changed UI'). It is distinct from sibling browser tools like start, run, and result, though it does not explicitly name them.

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 phrase 'for diagnosing a changed UI' provides a clear context for when to use the tool, but it does not mention alternatives or state when not to use it. The usage guidance is implied rather than explicit relative to the sibling tools.

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