browser_push

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 states that the tool renders and reads back, but it does not disclose side effects, whether this changes builder state, whether it requires an already-open browser, or what happens on failure. The term 'push' suggests some state change, but the description does not clarify its impact.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the main action and conveys both the input mode and the output purpose. There is no redundant or filler wording.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no annotations or output schema, the description covers the basic call intent and parameter meaning. However, it lacks important context about return value shape, preconditions, browser state requirements, and how this differs from nearby browser_* siblings, leaving notable gaps for an agent deciding when and how to invoke it.

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 input schema offers no description for the optional 'code' parameter, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description compensates by explaining that code is an alternative to the current plan, which is the key semantic needed to use the parameter correctly. It does not specify format or accepted values, but for a single optional string this is largely sufficient.

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 action: render the current plan or a given code in the builder and read back the site's manifest. It identifies the resource (builder manifest) and the verb ('render'), making the core purpose understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling browser tools like browser_readback or browser_pull, which may also involve reading back site data.

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 the tool should be used when you want to render either the current plan or supplied code and obtain the resulting manifest. It gives context by mentioning the builder and the two input modes, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as browser_readback or browser_screenshot.

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