Recorded steps

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

Annotations only declare openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, leaving the description to carry the rest – and it does, disclosing the data's provenance (browser_open/browser_act) and its retention window (reset by clear or workflow_save). Return format/pagination is still unstated, but the recording-buffer lifecycle is meaningfully surfaced.

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?

Front-loaded with what the tool is, then a compact usage flow in the second and third sentences. Dense but each clause (clear, substitution, expect steps, commit flag, workflow_save) maps to a real workflow action, with little wasted wording.

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?

No output schema, but the description and the clear/network param docs together cover what is returned, where it comes from, and how to consume it. For a two-param, zero-required read tool with safety annotations already present, this is close to sufficient; only the exact shape of returned steps is unspecified.

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 both parameters are already fully documented and the baseline is 3. The description only reiterates clear:true as a workflow step and says nothing about the network parameter, so it adds little semantic value beyond the schema.

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 states a specific resource (steps recorded by browser_open and browser_act) and its temporal scope (since the last clear or workflow_save), which lets an agent separate it from workflow_get (saved workflows) without opening schemas. It never uses an explicit retrieval verb like 'returns'/'lists', but the meaning 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?

It gives concrete lifecycle guidance: call with clear:true before recording a new task, and it names workflow_save as the explicit follow-up action. It does not spell out when not to use it versus siblings like workflow_get, so it stops short of a full 5.

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