browser_leak_check

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 states what is checked (IP, DNS, WebRTC leaks) but does not mention side effects, permissions, whether the operation is read-only, or how results are reported. The term 'check' implies a safe read, but it is not explicit.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the core function, and earns every word. No redundancy or fluff.

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?

The description is sufficient for a simple tool with one optional parameter and an output schema. It clearly ties into the sibling workflow (post-tunnel-assignment check) and names the leak types checked. Minor gaps include prerequisites and behavior on leak detection, but the output schema likely covers result details.

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 100% description coverage for its only parameter ('CDP slot number 0-19'), which is clear. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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: checking for IP, DNS, and WebRTC leaks. This specific verb+resource distinguishes it from sibling tools like browser_use_tunnel and browser_rotate_ip, which manage tunnels rather than verify 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 description explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Run after every tunnel assignment.' This gives clear contextual guidance. It does not mention alternatives or when not to use, but the strong directive implies a specific workflow.

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