browser_resume

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=true. The description adds that execution resumes after a pause and the step parameter pauses again. It does not explain why destructiveHint is true (resuming may lead to destructive actions via the script, but the tool itself is not destructive). No contradictions are present, but the description adds limited behavioral context beyond what the annotations convey.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and wastes no words. Every sentence adds value: first defines the action, second explains the key parameter behavior. This is optimally concise and well-structured.

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?

With two optional parameters and no output schema, the tool is simple. The description covers the general purpose and step behavior but omits the 'location' parameter entirely. Additionally, it does not specify what happens if the tool is called when execution is not paused. Given the low complexity, the description is partially complete but has noticeable gaps.

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 both parameters with descriptions. The tool description repeats the schema's explanation for 'step' but adds no new insight. The 'location' parameter is not mentioned at all. Since the baseline is 3 when coverage is high, and the description adds negligible value, the score remains 3.

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 verb 'Resume' and the resource 'script execution', with the specific context of being 'after it was paused'. This distinguishes it from sibling browser control tools like browser_navigate or browser_click, which handle other actions. The additional sentence about step behavior further clarifies the primary use case.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('after it was paused') and explains the step parameter's behavior, indicating a debugging context. It does not mention when not to use it or provide alternative tools, but given the unique purpose (resuming execution), no alternatives are obvious. The context is clear and sufficient for basic usage decisions.

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