browser_extract_images

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 does not mention whether the tool captures only <img> tags, whether it includes lazy-loaded or dynamically inserted images, or what the return format looks like. It is a minimal one-liner that provides no deeper insight.

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 sentence that is short, front-loaded with the action ('Get all images'), and contains no filler words. Every word contributes to the meaning, making it highly efficient.

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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description is mostly adequate. It conveys the essential function but lacks explicit mention of scope (current page) and potential limitations like excluding background images. Given the tool's simplicity, it is nearly complete.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter meanings. According to the rubric, this yields a baseline of 4. The description is consistent with the empty parameter schema.

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 it retrieves all images with src, alt, and dimensions. The verb 'Get' and resource 'images' make it specific, and it is distinct from sibling tools like browser_screenshot or browser_get_links. A minor omission is not explicitly stating 'from the current page', but the intent is clear.

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. Sibling tools like browser_get_elements could also capture images, but the description does not differentiate or suggest preferred scenarios. It simply states what the tool does.

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