browser_trace

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 only says 'Record trace' – it does not explain what gets captured, side effects on the browser session, dependencies, or any safety concerns. This is essentially a tautology.

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, but that is under-specification, not conciseness. It lacks any structural breakdown of purpose, usage, or parameters, failing to communicate even the basic intent of the tool.

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 three parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and a large set of siblings covering similar domains (network, profiling, vitals), this description is completely inadequate for an agent to determine when and how to call it correctly. Nothing about return value, side effects, or typical invocation is covered.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already provides basic descriptions for all three parameters. However, the tool description adds no additional meaning beyond that, leaving the parameter semantics overly generic (e.g., 'Trace action' is ambiguous). Baseline of 3 applies since coverage is full, but there is no enhancement.

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 'Record trace' is vague – it states a verb and object but does not specify what kind of trace (network, performance, JavaScript, etc.) nor how it differs from siblings like browser_profile or browser_vitals. It is barely more informative than the tool name itself.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus any of the many sibling tools. There is no context on typical scenarios, prerequisites, or situations where another tool would be more appropriate.

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