browser_stream

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. 'WebSocket streaming' reveals nothing about side effects, connection lifecycle, error handling, data format, or rate limits. It fails to inform the agent of any behavioral traits beyond the bare minimum implied by the name.

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 extremely short (two words), but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It is front-loaded (only the minimal text exists), but it fails to earn its place by providing any actionable information. It is too sparse to be useful.

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 has 3 parameters (one required), an ambiguous 'action' parameter, no enums, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is wholly inadequate. An agent cannot determine valid actions, expected behavior, or how to handle responses. This is critically incomplete.

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%, so the schema already documents the meaning of 'port', 'action', and 'session'. The description adds no extra semantic value beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. Despite the ambiguity of 'action', the description does not attempt to clarify it.

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 'WebSocket streaming' is tautological – it restates the tool name without a specific verb or resource. It doesn't clarify what the tool actually does (e.g., initiates a stream, receives events, manages connections), and fails to differentiate from 40+ sibling browser_* tools. The purpose is ambiguous.

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 alternatives like browser_trace, browser_network, or browser_console. No context is provided about typical use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. The agent is left to guess.

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