browser_task

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, openWorld=true, idempotent=false, destructive=false. The description adds the resource cost (200 credits) and emphasizes complexity, but does not disclose further behavioral traits like error handling or side effects. With annotations covering core safety, a 3 is appropriate.

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 extremely concise: two sentences plus a parenthetical cost note. It front-loads the purpose, then usage guidance, alternative, and cost. Every element is essential and non-redundant.

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 the tool's moderate complexity, the description provides complete context: purpose, use case, differentiation from siblings, and resource cost. No output schema exists, and the description adequately covers what an agent needs to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 provides 100% coverage for all three parameters (url, max_steps, task_description). The description does not add any parameter-level information beyond schema, so it meets the baseline without enhancement.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Run a multi-step browser automation task.' It differentiates from sibling 'browser_act' by explicitly saying 'More capable than browser_act for complex flows,' providing a specific verb+resource+scope.

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 description explicitly instructs when to use it: 'Use when you need to perform a complex, multi-step workflow on a web page.' It gives an example and names an alternative (browser_act) for simpler tasks, making the usage context and exclusion clear.

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