observe

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

With readOnlyHint=true, the safety profile is already established. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by explaining that outline yields labels and full yields a screenshot, which clarifies what the tool actually returns beyond the annotation.

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?

Two short, purposeful sentences. The core purpose is front-loaded, the sibling routing is immediate, and the parameter guidance is compressed without losing meaning. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is complete: it states the action, explains the only parameter values, and routes to the relevant sibling. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to call it correctly.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden for the detail parameter. It completely maps both enum values to concrete behavior, leaving no ambiguity about what detail=outline and detail=full produce.

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 opens with 'Read the page,' a specific verb and resource that clearly identifies the tool's core function. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly naming run_flow as the alternative for name/role/near-based interactions, so an agent can separate observe from other browser tools.

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 concrete direction: prefer run_flow when selecting by name/role/near, and choose detail=outline for labels versus detail=full for a screenshot. It does not enumerate all alternatives, but it covers the most likely confusion point and gives a clear branch for the parameter.

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