browser_route

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows it modifies state. The description does not add behavioral context such as route overriding, effect on existing routes, or cleanup requirements. It neither contradicts nor significantly enriches the 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?

The description is a single sentence of 14 words with no redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core action and purpose, achieving maximum conciseness without sacrificing clarity.

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?

Despite 6 parameters and destructive behavior, the description is too brief. It omits details like pattern matching behavior (glob syntax), response construction, cleanup requirements, and return value. The agent lacks sufficient context for correct invocation.

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 documents all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond mentioning the URL pattern via the tool's purpose. No parameter details are explained, but the baseline is 3 due to full schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Set up') and resource ('route') with a clear purpose ('mock network requests matching a URL pattern'). It is distinct from sibling tools like browser_route_list (list routes) and browser_unroute (remove route), making the tool's purpose 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, when to prefer it over other network mocking tools, or when cleanup is needed. The description simply states what the tool does without context.

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