browse

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and largely meets it: it enumerates the terminal statuses (done, blocked, needs_input, budget, error), discloses that the tab stays open for the user, that the tab_id is returned, and that the browser self-closes after idle minutes. It omits auth/permission requirements and what triggers blocked vs budget, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 core behavior is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by a clean Args block and a compact status list. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary (the Google/idealo examples plus the repeated tab-lifecycle note), but every element is functional.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be re-explained, and the description fills the remaining gaps: parameter intent, the multi-turn continuation protocol, and the failure/status states. An agent can complete a session correctly from this alone.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for all three params: goal is 'the task in plain language' with the critical rule that every needed value must be embedded because fields are filled from the goal; url is the start page; tab_id continues a prior tab. The example goals clarify the expected granularity.

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 outcome: 'Complete a web task in a stealth browser and return the relevant page content as markdown.' The agent immediately knows this is an autonomous browsing/retrieval tool, and it is clearly distinct from the only sibling, close_tab.

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?

Explains the operative conditions well: url is required unless continuing an existing tab, tab_id is for follow-ups or after needs_input/blocked, and the needs_input flow tells the agent to re-call with the same tab_id plus the missing value. It does not explicitly contrast with close_tab, but that routing is obvious enough.

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