get_browser_config

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Get' which implies a read operation, but fails to specify if this requires special permissions, what the output includes (though an output schema exists), or any side effects like performance impacts. This is inadequate for a tool that likely interacts with browser instances.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 the tool has an output schema (which covers return values) and only one parameter, the description is somewhat complete but lacks critical context. It doesn't explain what 'advanced browser configuration' entails or how it differs from other get-* tools, leaving gaps in understanding the tool's full scope and use cases.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only vaguely references 'a specific instance' without explaining the 'session_id' parameter's meaning or format. Since there is only one parameter, the baseline is 4, but the description adds minimal value beyond the schema, resulting in a score of 3.

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 states the tool 'Get advanced browser configuration for a specific instance' clearly indicates it retrieves configuration data, with 'advanced' and 'specific instance' providing some specificity. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'get_browser_status' or 'get_instance_info', leaving the exact scope and differentiation vague.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_browser_status' or 'get_instance_info'. The description implies it's for configuration retrieval but offers no context on prerequisites, timing, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.

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