hmi_browser

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden. It transparently lists all supported actions (open, screenshot, console, eval, click, type, wait, close) and clarifies that it runs headless. It does not detail side effects like session cleanup or potential interference, but the action list gives a clear behavioral model.

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, a single paragraph that lists actions and includes a high-priority usage directive. Every sentence adds value; there is no fluff or redundancy. The structure is clean and immediately readable.

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?

While no output schema is provided, the action names imply return types (e.g., screenshot returns an image, console returns logs). The description does not explicitly state return formats, but the tool's purpose and action list provide enough context for an agent to use it correctly in most scenarios.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. Each parameter is tied to specific actions (e.g., 'url' for open, 'clear' for console, 'expression' for eval), adding meaningful context beyond the schema structure. The nested 'viewport' object is also described, making the semantics clear.

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: automating a headless Edge browser to test the HMI. It lists specific actions and gives a concrete directive ('ALWAYS use this after deploy'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like hmi_runtime or visu_project that focus on the runtime environment rather than browser-based visual verification.

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 says when to use the tool ('ALWAYS use this after deploy to visually verify the HMI works'), providing strong contextual guidance. It does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the explicit directive covers the primary scenario sufficiently.

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