browser_playbook_match

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

The description discloses key behaviors (scoring, threshold filtering) but lacks details on side effects, read-only nature, or what happens when no matches exist. Without annotations, this is moderate transparency.

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?

Two concise sentences front-load the key action and outcome. No redundant information; every word adds value.

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 lacks details about output format, scoring algorithm, threshold value or configuration, and how to interpret results. For a matching tool without output schema, more context is needed to use it effectively.

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% and the description only maps parameter names to their real-world meanings (url, intent, taskText). It does not explain how they interact (e.g., logical AND/OR), formatting requirements, or provide examples. This is insufficient for a tool with 3 string parameters.

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?

Clearly states the tool finds playbooks matching a URL, intent, or task description and returns scored matches above a threshold. This differentiates it from other browser playbook tools like list, get, or run.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives such as browser_playbook_list or browser_playbook_get. The description implies it is for matching, but does not specify when to prefer matching over other operations.

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