browser_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read operation ('Get') but does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, has no side effects, or what happens if there is no active tab. It also does not mention any permission requirements or rate limits. The description adds little beyond the basic read intent.

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, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the action and then lists the exact data points returned. There is no redundant language or filler. It earns its place with every word contributing to the tool's purpose.

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 simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description lists the data points returned but does not describe the output format (e.g., an object with keys) or how the 'workflow-memory hints' are presented. It also does not mention error cases or how this differs from browser_status, which might return overlapping info. With no output schema, the description should provide more structural detail to be fully complete.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty). Since there are no parameters to document, the description does not need to add any parameter semantics. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description does not need to compensate for any missing parameter information. It is appropriately concise in this regard.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource: the active tab's url, title, load state, scroll position, and workflow-memory hints. This is specific and distinct from siblings like browser_list_tabs (which lists all tabs) or browser_status (which likely gives overall browser status). The tool's purpose is unambiguous.

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 that browser_status or browser_snapshot might be more appropriate for other contexts, nor does it state any exclusions. The only implied usage is 'when you need this info,' which is not explicit enough for an agent to make a reliable selection among many similar browser inspection tools.

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