multi_browserbase_stagehand_extract_session

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively explains that the tool extracts data based on instructions and a schema, works best with clear instructions, and ensures structured output. However, it lacks details on potential limitations, error handling, or performance aspects like rate limits, which could be useful for an agent.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds value, such as usage guidelines and best practices. However, it could be slightly more concise by avoiding minor redundancy, like repeating the need for specific instructions, but overall it's efficient and clear.

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 complexity (extraction from web pages) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description does a good job of covering key aspects like purpose, usage, and behavioral traits. It could improve by detailing the output format or error cases, but it provides sufficient context for an agent to use the tool effectively in most scenarios.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by emphasizing the importance of specific instructions, but it doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or examples that aren't already covered in the schema descriptions. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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's purpose with specific verbs ('extracts structured information and text content') and resources ('from the current web page'). It explicitly distinguishes this tool from its sibling 'observe' tool, which is for interactive elements, making the differentiation clear and specific.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('when you need to get text content, data, or information from a page') and when not to ('for interactive elements like buttons, forms, or clickable items, use the observe tool instead'). It also mentions an alternative tool by name, ensuring clear decision-making for the agent.

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