Scan browser automation exposure in the current page

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

With no annotations, the description must cover behavioral traits. It lists what is scanned and clarifies the scope (no encryption analysis), but it does not explicitly confirm the operation is non-destructive or describe rate limits, authentication needs, or side effects.

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, consisting of two sentences that front-load the action and key details. Every sentence adds value without 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no nested objects, no output schema), the description covers the main purpose and usage context. However, it does not describe the return format of the scan results, which is a minor gap.

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 single optional parameter 'saveTo' is fully described in the input schema (100% coverage). The tool description adds no additional meaning or usage guidance beyond the schema, meeting the baseline.

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 scans for common automation/environment exposure points in the current webpage, listing specific elements like navigator.webdriver, plugins, WebGL, etc. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (agent_*, frx_env_*) by focusing on browser automation detection.

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 clear context: it is used to compare manual vs. MCP opening and explicitly states it does not perform single-site encryption analysis. However, it does not mention alternative tools or when not to use it.

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