browser_doctor

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 fails to mention that the 'fix' parameter runs destructive repairs, that the tool may mutate state, or any side effects. The only hint of danger is buried in the parameter description, not the tool description.

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 words is not conciseness but under-specification. The description fails to provide any structure or context, and every useful bit of information is absent. A tool with a destructive repair option deserves at least a sentence.

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 potentially destructive behavior, the lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what it diagnoses, what the output is, when to use it, or what risks exist. Agents would have no way to call it correctly.

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 100% (both 'fix' and 'offline' have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter details beyond what the schema already provides, but it doesn't detract either.

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 'Diagnose install' is extremely vague. It gives a general verb ('diagnose') and a resource ('install') but doesn't specify what aspect of install is diagnosed, what conditions it applies to, or how it differs from siblings like browser_install. It's not a tautology but lacks specificity.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many browser_* siblings, nor any exclusions or context. The description provides zero indication of intended invocation scenarios.

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