browser_resize

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=true, covering key behavioral traits. The description adds no additional context beyond the basic action, such as effects on browser state or potential side effects. It does not contradict annotations, but offers minimal value beyond them.

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, direct sentence with zero wasted words, making it highly efficient and front-loaded. It conveys the core action without unnecessary elaboration, which is ideal for a simple tool like this.

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's low complexity, two well-documented parameters, and annotations covering key behaviors, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no output schema and destructiveHint=true, it could benefit from more detail on outcomes or errors, but the annotations partially compensate.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for 'width' and 'height' parameters. The description does not add any semantic details beyond what the schema provides, such as unit explanations or valid ranges. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate given the schema's completeness.

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 'Resize the browser window' clearly states the verb ('Resize') and resource ('browser window'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'browser_snapshot' or 'browser_take_screenshot' that also involve browser window manipulation, so it lacks sibling distinction for a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., an open browser window), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'browser_snapshot' for capturing size changes, leaving the agent with minimal context for decision-making.

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