browser_batch

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses real behavioral traits: actions run sequentially, execution halts at the first failure unless stop_on_error is false, and per-step results map to the same index. It even flags that screenshots come back as base64 in the JSON unlike browser_screenshot. That is substantive context the annotations cannot convey.

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 the purpose, then a usage sentence, then execution/return semantics, then a targeted note. Every sentence carries distinct information and none is padding, so the length is justified for a tool with 24 action types.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by explaining that step results land in a results array at matching indices and that batch screenshots differ from browser_screenshot. Combined with the well-documented schema, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only a fuller description of what a result object contains is missing.

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 all three parameters (session_id, actions, stop_on_error) are already documented in the schema, setting the baseline at 3. The description largely restates the stop_on_error semantics already in the schema; its extra detail about the results array concerns return values rather than parameter meaning.

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 and resource ('Execute a sequence of browser actions in a single call against an existing session') and clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling single-action tools by contrasting 'a single call' with 'calling each tool individually.' An agent can immediately tell this is the batch variant of the browser action 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?

Gives a clear usage condition ('Use this when you already know the full sequence of steps') and an explicit alternative pairing ('faster than calling each tool individually'). It stops short of a when-not, e.g. that the batch is inappropriate when later steps depend on intermediate results, which the criteria for a 5 would require.

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