Get Browser Monitor

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower, and the description does add real behavioral context: metrics only populate 'once pages send beacons', and the only persisted state is the app variable CLOADY_BROWSER_MONITORING, with snippet attributes otherwise carrying replay share, masking and conversion goal. That derived-vs-stored distinction is valuable, but it is buried in a single run-on sentence and no cost or latency characteristics are given.

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 entire definition is one long run-on sentence that chains return fields, conditional behavior and storage semantics together with commas and clauses. It is not front-loaded — the agent has to read to the end to learn the enablement model — and splitting the return inventory from the conceptual explanation would cost nothing.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly takes on the burden of describing return values and does cover them, including the conditional nature of the metrics section. However, for a 5-parameter read tool it omits parameter meaning for three parameters and provides no routing versus its obvious sibling updateBrowserMonitor, leaving the definition only minimally sufficient.

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 only 20% — just the range parameter — and the description adds nothing about env, region, workspaceSlug or appSlug. In particular, what region selects for a browser monitor, and whether env changes which snippet configuration is returned, are left entirely unexplained in both schema and description, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 enumerates the returned data (public browser key, script URL, allowed beacon hosts, latest beacon time, snippet settings, edge-added tag, LCP p75, active sessions), so the resource is identifiable, but it never states the purpose in a plain verb+resource form such as 'get browser monitoring configuration and metrics'. It also never distinguishes itself from siblings like updateBrowserMonitor or getBrowserSessionReplay, so the agent must infer scope from the data list.

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 at all: nothing says to call this before updateBrowserMonitor, or to use getBrowserSessionReplay instead when per-session data is wanted. The closest thing is an implicit hint that metrics require pages to be sending beacons, which is a data-availability condition 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.