inspect_live_page

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The word 'Inspect' and 'current live' imply a read-only snapshot of live state, but the description does not explicitly state that the tool has no side effects, does not modify the page, or may reflect transient loading states. This is adequate but not rich.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the primary action and scope, then efficiently enumerates the covered state fields in a colon-separated list. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.

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 inspection tool, the description is largely complete: it names the main resource and the important included fields. However, there is no output schema and no explicit statement of return shape or element representation, so an agent must infer some details about how active/focused elements are identified.

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 there is no parameter ambiguity for the description to clarify. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on what the tool returns rather than on input semantics.

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 uses a specific verb ('Inspect') and resource ('current live browser page state'), and enumerates concrete data points: URL, title, viewport dimensions, scroll positions, readyState, active and focused elements. This clearly distinguishes it from page-level siblings like get_live_dom_snapshot or get_dom_state, which focus on DOM structure rather than overall page state.

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 implies use when an agent needs current page-level state details, but it never explicitly says when to prefer this tool over alternatives like get_live_dom_snapshot, inspect_live_element, or get_element_visual_state. There are no exclusions or sibling comparisons, so usage guidance is only implicit.

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