browser_capture_mhtml

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

No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. It mentions the underlying mechanism (CDP Page.captureSnapshot) and return value (file path), but does not disclose potential side effects, authentication needs, or file size limits. Adds some useful technical detail but not extensive behavioral context.

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 concise (3-4 lines) and front-loaded with core purpose. However, it could be structured more clearly, e.g., separating behavioral notes from usage. Still efficient overall.

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 output schema exists but is not described, and parameters are undocumented, the description lacks sufficient completeness. It does not cover error behavior, file overwrite policy, or output file format details important for a mutation/save tool.

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%, yet the description offers no explanation of the two parameters (output_path, session_id). It only mentions returning a file path, leaving the agent to infer parameter semantics from names alone. Insufficient compensation for missing schema descriptions.

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 tool saves a full page as MHTML archive via CDP, listing captured features (iframes, shadow DOM) and specifying 'for debugging/forensics'. It differentiates from siblings like screenshot and PDF by format and purpose.

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 gives context ('debugging/forensics') and specifies 'Chromium only', which helps in use-case selection. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternative tools like browser_screenshot or browser_pdf_save.

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