agent_browser_help

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral transparency. It clearly states the behavior: showing help and displaying available commands. As a help command with no parameters or side effects, this is sufficient disclosure, though it doesn't detail output format or any prerequisites.

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, with the purpose front-loaded in the first sentence ('Show help for agent-browser'). It provides relevant context and usage without any extraneous text.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, what it returns (available commands), and when to call it, which fully covers the agent's needs.

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 zero parameters, so the baseline for parameter semantics is 4. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, and it correctly makes no mention of parameters.

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 tool's function with a specific verb+resource: 'Show help for agent-browser'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by describing agent-browser as a 'low-level browser automation CLI', which sets it apart from the stagehand tools and agent_browser_run.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: 'Call this to see available commands.' It also implies a context difference by calling agent-browser 'low-level' and 'precise, deterministic control', suggesting it is for CLI-level help rather than higher-level stagehand operations, though it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives.

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