browser_extract_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the scrolling mechanism, automatic scrollable-ancestor detection, deduplication of row text, and the reached_end return value. It does not detail failure modes or potential side effects like triggering lazy-loading requests, but the core behavior is clearly disclosed.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, usage guidance, rationale, parameter guidance, and return behavior are each covered in a clear, front-loaded structure. No filler or redundant content.

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?

This is a complex tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, and the description covers all essential decision-making information: what it does, when to use it instead of a sibling, how to invoke it, what the selector should be, and what the return value indicates. The remaining parameter details are fully documented in the schema.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful parameter context beyond the schema: it clarifies the selector should match ONE repeating row, gives concrete selector examples for different UIs, and states that the scrollable ancestor is auto-detected. This helps an agent choose the right selector value.

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 verb and resource: read EVERY row of a long or virtualised list by scrolling until no new rows appear. It clearly distinguishes itself from browser_get_page_content by naming it directly and describing the exact scenario where it applies.

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 says 'Use this instead of browser_get_page_content whenever a page shows a repeating list longer than the viewport' and gives concrete examples such as Outlook mail lists, invoice tables, search results, and transaction histories. It also explains why the alternative fails in these cases, leaving no ambiguity about when to choose this tool.

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