browser_inspect

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 does well by explaining the four available actions and their purposes, and mentions browser tab reuse behavior ('Optional on subsequent calls — reuses the open browser tab'). However, it doesn't cover important behavioral aspects like performance implications, error handling, authentication requirements, or rate limits that would be crucial for a browser inspection tool.

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 perfectly structured and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. Each subsequent sentence adds valuable information without redundancy. The four actions are clearly enumerated, and the 'help' guidance is efficiently included. Every sentence earns its place, making this an excellent example of concise, well-structured documentation.

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 moderate complexity (7 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description does well by explaining the core purpose, available actions, and usage context. However, without annotations or output schema, it should ideally provide more behavioral context about what results to expect, error conditions, or performance characteristics. The description is comprehensive for basic usage but leaves some operational details unspecified.

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 all 7 parameters thoroughly. The description adds meaningful context by explaining the tool's overall purpose and the four action types, which helps the agent understand the semantic relationship between parameters. While it doesn't add parameter-specific details beyond the schema, it provides valuable high-level context that enhances parameter understanding.

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 ('inspects', 'gets', 'captures', 'compares') and resources ('live browser page', 'CSS and DOM information', 'DevTools data'). It explicitly distinguishes what this tool provides ('what the browser actually renders') versus alternatives ('not just what the source code says'), making the purpose highly specific and well-defined.

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 for when to use the tool ('before writing or debugging CSS to verify what the browser actually renders') and offers guidance for uncertain situations ('Call with action 'help' if unsure'). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or name specific alternatives, as there are no sibling tools mentioned. The guidance is practical but lacks exclusion criteria.

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