Avaliar app no browser (screenshots, network, console)

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It does disclose the Playwright dependency ('Requer: npm install playwright') and the capture scope, but it omits details about file side-effects (e.g., screenshot creation) and failure behavior.

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 very concise: two short sentences that front-load the agent role and list actions, followed by a critical prerequisite. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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?

The output schema exists, and all parameters are documented, so the description only needs to cover core function and prerequisites. It does so effectively, including the Playwright install requirement. Missing usage alternatives, but for a simple browser-eval tool this is adequate.

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% with all four parameters well-described. The description's mention of capturing console/network restates the parameter descriptions without adding extra syntax, format, or usage nuances, so 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 clearly states it opens a URL in the browser and captures screenshots, console errors, and network requests. This specific verb-resource pair distinguishes it from sibling testing and file tools.

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 implies browser-evaluation usage via '[Agente especializado: Browser]' and lists the capture capabilities, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives like run_tests or qa_auto. No exclusions or alternative guidance is provided.

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