browser_inspect_events

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 usefully adds that 'The event log is append-only and records all tool calls made to this session,' which clarifies the log's nature and content. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like log size, retention policies, or authentication requirements, leaving gaps for a mutation-free read operation.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by bullet points for arguments and returns. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the tool, the second explains the event log's behavior, and the bullet points document parameters and output. There is no redundant or wasted text.

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's low complexity (one parameter, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return value documentation), the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, parameter semantics, and output format. However, it lacks usage guidelines and some behavioral details like error conditions or session state requirements, preventing a perfect score.

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 description adds meaningful context beyond the input schema. The schema only defines 'session' as a required string parameter with 0% description coverage. The description clarifies that 'session' refers to the 'Name of the browser session,' providing essential semantic information that the schema lacks. This compensates well for the low schema coverage.

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's purpose: 'Get the event log for a session' with the specific resource being 'event log' and verb 'Get'. It distinguishes from siblings like browser_inspect_console or browser_inspect_dom by focusing on tool call events rather than console output, DOM structure, or other session aspects. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all sibling tools, keeping it at a 4 rather than a 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when this tool is appropriate compared to other browser_inspect_* tools or browser_session_* tools, nor does it specify prerequisites like needing an active session. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and description alone.

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