browser_call

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about safety profile, side effects, permissions, or failure behavior. Since it can invoke arbitrary methods (including destructive ones like downloads or dialogs), omitting any risk or reversibility context is a real gap.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core capability and immediately followed by a concrete invocation example. No filler and the example earns its place by doubling as a discovery hint.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description is incomplete for a fully generic dispatch tool, but the browser.capabilities discovery pointer partially compensates by giving the agent a way to enumerate valid methods. Return-value and params structure remain unaddressed.

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 0% for two parameters, so the description must compensate, and it only offers one concrete example (method:"browser.capabilities"). It gives no explanation of the method naming convention, no detail on the nested params object shape, and no required-vs-optional 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?

States a specific verb (call) and resource (AgentGo protocol method) and positions itself as the generic dispatch tool relative to specialized siblings, listing example domains like cookies, downloads, PDF and dialogs. It is clear what it does, though the abstraction of 'protocol method' means an agent still needs the sibling list to know it is the fallback.

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?

Implies usage (call methods not exposed by other tools) and gives a discovery entry point via browser.capabilities, but never states when to prefer browser_call over the ten specialized browser_* siblings or when not to use it. Guidance is inferable rather than explicit.

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