browser_show

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does well: it discloses the visible side effects (scrolling, cursor movement, temporary highlight), the return value ('the highlighted text with its context'), and a security caveat about untrusted page content. It does not say what happens when the text is not found or how ref and text interact, leaving a small gap.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the decision rule and safety note. Every clause — including the untrusted-content warning — 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 five-parameter, zero-required visual tool with no output schema, the description covers action, trigger, output shape and a security caveat. Only the failure case (no match found) is unaddressed, which an agent would likely encounter.

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 100%, so ref, text, label, snapshot and screenshot are already documented. The description only echoes the optional caption and the highlight target, adding no format or precedence guidance (e.g. which of ref vs text wins). 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Show the user something on the page') plus the concrete mechanics: scroll into view, move the visible cursor, highlight, optional caption. This clearly separates it from browser_screenshot and browser_snapshot, which capture rather than annotate the page for the user.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger condition — 'Call it before you use a value you read on the page' — with four concrete examples (verification code, link, price, error message) and the reason ('the user cannot see what you read from snapshots'), which implicitly contrasts it with the snapshot siblings.

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