browser_resize

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, which the description aligns with. However, the description adds no new behavioral details beyond stating the action. It does not mention side effects like triggering layout recalculation, affecting screenshots, or the fact that the current browser tab's viewport changes. With annotations carrying the main transparency burden, the description adds minimal value.

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 a single short sentence, making it very concise. However, it is so minimal that it borders on underspecification. There is room to add meaningful context (e.g., 'Changes the viewport width and height to the specified pixel values') without losing conciseness. It earns its place by not being verbose, but doesn't maximize the space.

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?

For a mutation tool with no output schema and a simple interface, the description should clarify the scope (current window/tab), the unit (pixels), and the impact on other tools (e.g., screenshots). It fails to mention that resize affects the active browser window only, or that dimensions are in CSS pixels. The absence of output schema means the description should explain that the tool returns nothing or confirms success. The description is incomplete given the tool's role in a sequence of browser interactions.

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 100% – both width and height have inline descriptions. The tool description repeats no parameter info. Per guidelines, baseline is 3. The description does not add context like units (pixels), allowed ranges, or validation rules, which would be useful but not required given schema coverage.

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 verb 'resize' and the resource 'browser window'. It is immediately understandable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like browser_navigate or browser_snapshot, but the action is sufficiently distinct that no confusion arises. A more precise term like 'viewport' or 'dimensions' would improve specificity.

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 provides no guidance on when or why to use this tool over others. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., browser must be open), expected scenarios (e.g., responsive testing, adjusting before screenshot), or alternatives. The agent is left to infer usage solely from the tool name.

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