browser_state

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states 'save/load' without detailing side effects, such as file writes, overwriting behavior, or whether any authentication is required. The description does not reveal what happens on save vs load, whether it processes the path or session, or any error conditions. This is insufficient for a state-management tool.

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, concise sentence that captures the core purpose. It is front-loaded with the action verbs and clearly states the resource. No unnecessary words are used, making it efficient for an agent to parse quickly.

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 simplicity, one might expect a short description, but it lacks essential details an agent needs to call it correctly. The description does not explain how the 'action' parameter works, whether 'path' and 'session' are required or optional depending on the action, or what the return/output looks like. Since there is no output schema, the agent would be left guessing about the response format and edge cases.

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 already provides descriptions for all three parameters with 100% coverage, setting a baseline of 3. The description 'Save/load auth state' does not add any further meaning beyond what the schema states, such as clarifying the allowed values for 'action' or the relationship between 'path' and 'session'. It does not compensate beyond the schema, so a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 function: saving and loading authentication state. It uses specific verbs ('save/load') and a specific resource ('auth state'), which is sufficient to understand its purpose. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like browser_cookie or browser_storage, which might manage related 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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, conditions, or scenarios where saving or loading auth state would be appropriate. The only implied usage is from the task itself, but nothing explicit is provided.

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