browser_get_page_info

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation via the verb 'Return,' but does not explicitly state that it avoids page modification, whether a valid session is required, or what happens if the session is invalid. Prerequisites and side effects are unaddressed.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that lists all key return fields with no filler or redundancy. Every word earns its place, making it maximally concise and easy to parse.

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?

For a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description gives a useful summary of return categories but lacks specificity about their format or structure (e.g., viewport dimensions, loading state values, which resource types are counted). This leaves some ambiguity about the exact response shape, but the core purpose is adequately conveyed.

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 description does not mention the sessionId parameter at all, but the input schema provides a complete description ('Browser session ID; optional when exactly one session exists.'). Since schema description coverage is 100%, the description is not required to add parameter detail; the baseline of 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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and enumerates the exact resource contents (page URL, viewport, loading state, resource counts), making it unmistakable what the tool does. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on specific details like DOM snapshots or network requests, as no other sibling matches this combination of fields.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like browser_get_dom_snapshot or browser_get_network_requests. The intended use is only implied by the tool's name and described outputs, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use context is provided.

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