novada_browser

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

Annotations indicate non-readonly, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world. Description adds critical behavioral details: session expiration (10 min), environment variable requirement, and action constraints. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Description is well-organized with bullet points and clear sections. Each sentence adds value; no fluff. It front-loads the main use case and efficiently covers actions, sessions, and constraints.

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?

Covers actions, sessions, constraints, platform notes, and environmental requirements. Missing output description (e.g., what screenshot returns), but the tool is complex and the description is fairly thorough. Could add return value hints for each action.

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 has 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all parameters. Description adds extra context like chaining actions, max 20 actions, session reuse speed benefits, but the schema already explains each param well. The description adds value beyond schema but not dramatically.

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?

Description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'interact with a web page — click buttons, fill forms, scroll, take screenshots, or execute JavaScript.' It lists specific actions and explicitly distinguishes from siblings (novada_extract, novada_scrape, novada_unblock), making it unambiguous.

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?

Provides explicit 'Best for:' and 'Not for:' sections with sibling tool names. Also includes platform-specific guidance (TikTok geo-restrictions, SPA wait strategies) and constraint that close_session/list_sessions must be alone.

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