browser_interact

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits: JavaScript eval is disabled by default, and the tool does not bypass CAPTCHA, authentication, paywalls, or access controls. However, it does not mention session handling, potential state changes, or output format implications.

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 concise (3 sentences) and front-loaded with the main purpose. The second and third sentences add important caveats. Could be slightly more structured, but it is efficient without unnecessary words.

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 complexity (10 parameters, nested actions) and existing output schema, the description covers core purpose and a couple of limitations but omits behavior details like session persistence, output format handling, and action sequence execution rules.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, but it only briefly mentions actions and does not explain most parameters (e.g., session_id, persist_session, output_format). The agent gets minimal help understanding parameter semantics beyond their names.

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 purpose: 'Operate a browser using safe declarative actions' and lists specific actions (click, fill, press, etc.). It differentiates from siblings like crawl_url and extract_links by focusing on interactive browser operations rather than extraction.

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 implies usage for interactive browser tasks (clicking, filling forms) but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling extraction tools such as crawl_url or extract_structured. No 'use this for... not for...' wording is present.

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