browser_preflight

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

Description discloses that it opens publisher pages (non-read side effect) and may update filtered storage-state, while confirming it never runs PDF fallback or automatic authentication. This adds context beyond annotations, which only indicate non-destructive but read/write capable.

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 sentences, front-loaded with main purpose and key behavioral traits. No wasted words; efficient and clear.

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?

Given 7 parameters and no schema coverage, description is too brief. It conveys essential purpose and behaviors but omits parameter details needed for correct use, despite presence of output schema for return values.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, description should explain parameters but only mentions 'one provider or all', ignoring detail, test_url, timeout, browser_user_agent, save_storage_state, and storage_state_path. Lacks essential guidance for correct invocation.

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?

Description clearly states the tool live-checks the shared browser HTML path for one or all providers, using specific verbs and resource scope. It distinguishes from sibling tools like fetch_paper by focusing on preflight verification.

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?

Description mentions it opens publisher pages and never runs PDF fallback or automatic authentication, implying contexts where those are needed. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like fetch_paper or provider_status.

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