browserless_logs

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description agrees by stating 'Read-only.' It adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: the plan-dependent retention window, server refusal boundaries, and what data is recorded. This is transparent and does not contradict the annotations.

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 entire tool description is three tight sentences with no fluff. It opens with the primary action and then layers the diagnostic purpose, the plan-window caveat, and the read-only safety hint. This is efficient, well-structured, and every sentence earns its place.

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?

Even with no output schema, the description tells the agent exactly what the log entries will include and what can be diagnosed. It also covers an important edge case (server may refuse a range and report a limit) and the read-only nature of the tool. Given the richness of the 15-parameter schema, the description supplies the missing non-schema context.

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?

All 15 parameters are fully documented in the input schema with examples and descriptions, so the schema description coverage is 100%. The tool description itself does not need to add much about the parameters; it simply confirms the purpose and the return fields. This meets the baseline of 3 because the heavy lifting is already done in the schema.

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 ('Read') and a specific resource ('Browserless's own record of the account's recent requests'), then lists the record's value: whether it failed, why it stopped, duration, cost. It does not explicitly name sibling tools, but its diagnostic framing ('diagnosing a run that failed on the Browserless side rather than in your own code') differentiates it from the other browserless_* tools. This is slightly below a 5 because sibling differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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 gives a clear when-to-use: it is the tool for diagnosing failures on the Browserless side, not your own code. It also warns that the available time window is plan-dependent and that the server may refuse overlong ranges. It does not explicitly say when to use alternative tools instead, but the guidance is still strong enough to steer an agent.

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