session_warmup

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly discloses that the tool visits sites, builds browsing history, and influences anti-bot scoring. It could mention side effects like persisted history or cookies, but the core observable behavior is stated directly.

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?

One compact sentence gives the action, examples, timing, and rationale without filler. Every part earns its place and the key context is front-loaded.

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 two-optional-parameter tool with a complete schema, the description is nearly sufficient. It explains why and when to use the tool, but could briefly mention prerequisites like an already-launched browser session.

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 parameters are already documented. The description adds no extra meaning about sites or duration_ms, but the schema handles those details well. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Visit') with a clear resource ('innocuous public sites') and a concrete goal: build browsing history before targeting a protected site. It also names the anti-bot context (CF/DataDome IP scoring), which distinguishes it from generic navigation tools like navigate or wait_for.

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 explicitly signals when to use it: before targeting a protected site, to improve IP scoring. It does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives like fingerprint_audit or cookie_import, but the timing and purpose are clear enough for an agent to choose it appropriately.

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