Validates a BrowserAct CSV of up to 20 rows against expected URLs while preserving original strings and avoiding currency inference or provider calls.
Validate a max-20-row BrowserAct CSV against expected URLs. Preserve original strings; no currency inference, provider calls, payment or telemetry.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| payload | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description does useful work by declaring what the tool will NOT do: no currency inference, no provider calls, no payment or telemetry, and it preserves original strings. However, it never says what happens on invalid rows, whether validation is all-or-nothing, or what the result looks like, leaving the safe-read profile partly inferred.
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?
Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the size bound. The negative-constraint clause is dense but each element (no inference, no provider calls, no payment/telemetry) conveys a distinct safety guarantee.
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?
No annotations, no output schema, and no schema descriptions leave the description as the only information source, yet it omits the origin parameter's semantics and any indication of the validation result shape. For a validation tool, not knowing what 'valid' output looks like is a material gap.
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 description must compensate. It partly does — 'max-20-row CSV' maps to csv_text/maxItems and 'expected URLs' maps to expected_urls — but the origin parameter with its internal/allubi/independent_unverified enum is never mentioned, and expected CSV column structure is unexplained.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: validate a BrowserAct CSV against expected URLs, with a size bound. It is distinguishable from siblings like validate_browseract_report by naming CSV input, though it does not explicitly contrast with that sibling.
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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no routing to validate_browseract_report or assess_browseract_fit. The only contextual constraint is the implicit 20-row limit, which is a data constraint rather than usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.