browser_overview

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does so richly. It discloses that selectors are CDP-generated snapshots requiring re-calls after navigation or re-render, that input text is always the name and never the typed value, that browser_form withholds masked-password values, that a non-matching scope silently falls back to the full document, and it names the BrowserNotConnected error condition. No annotation contradiction exists.

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 dense but every clause earns its place: main purpose is front-loaded, usage guidance follows, and caveats are grouped and clearly labeled. Though lengthy, the complexity of the tool (8 parameters, modal behavior, error conditions, scope fallback) justifies the length. There is no filler or redundant restating of the schema.

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 absence of an output schema, the description does a strong job of explaining what the agent will receive: ARIA state values, the always-present modal section with isModal and blocker details, and structured output. It also covers error conditions, scope fallback, and masked input behavior. The definition is complete enough for correct invocation and expectation-setting.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds materially beyond the schema by explaining the non-matching scope selector behavior (silent fallback to the full document) and by clarifying input-text semantics as they relate to output. Most other parameter details are already well-documented in the schema, so the added value is meaningful but not exhaustive.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair: 'List all interactive elements (links, buttons, inputs, ARIA controls) on the current page' and enumerates the returned data (CSS selectors, visible text, viewport status). It also explicitly distinguishes the tool from browser_click and screenshot, so an agent can immediately tell what it does and why it exists.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'use before browser_click to discover stable selectors' and 'prefer this over screenshot when verifying button/toggle state after submission'. It also routes value reading to browser_form and suggests browser_eval for verifying a scope selector, providing clear context and alternatives without leaving inference to the agent.

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