browserless_sessions

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

The description notes it is 'Read-only — it never stops a session', matching the readOnlyHint while also spelling out the safety guarantee. It richly details the replay action's output contract, including that the rrweb page is self-contained, needs no network, and must be shown inline or as an artifact rather than summarized.

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 definition is front-loaded with a clear purpose, then gives exactly the important usage context, and ends with the critical replay display instruction. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no fluff or redundant schema copying.

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 tool with 7 parameters, no output schema, and no nested object structure, the description covers the main output and behavior for the key action 'replay', surfaces user-facing intent, and emphasizes the must-do UI behavior. Creators additionally receive 100% parameter schema coverage, keeping a complete enough picture for correct invocation.

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 input schema already documents all 7 parameters with descriptions, including the action enum and paging fields. These descriptions additionally calls out replay behavior, but it does not add semantic meaning to the individual parameters beyond the schema, so 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 opens with the specific verb 'Inspect' and explicitly scopes the resource to 'sessions on the Browserless account behind the current API token'. It enumerates four concrete data kinds, which distinguishes it clearly from crawling, exporting, and performance sibling tools even without naming them.

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 explicit use contexts with 'Use it to answer "what is running", "did my session survive", or "what got recorded"', which tells an agent when to select this tool. It does not name alternative sibling tools or describe when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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