browserless_show

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the tool does not re-execute browser actions, does not trigger downloads, and does not spawn additional handoffs, which tells an agent it is a pure render of existing state.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and the accepted view types, then the required input, then the negative constraints. Every clause carries distinct information with no restatement of the name or annotations.

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 read-only display tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description covers what is rendered, what input to supply, and what side effects will not occur. It does not mention behavior for a stale or invalid viewRef, which is the one operational gap an agent might hit.

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?

Schema coverage is 50%: viewRef has no schema description, and the description fills that gap by specifying it must be the exact value returned by the producer tool and is not an arbitrary id. The _prompt parameter is undocumented in the description, but it is a self-describing telemetry field, so the omission is low cost.

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?

States a concrete verb ('Display') and enumerates the resource types it renders (replay, screenshot gallery, video, human handoff) plus 'inline', which separates it from download/export-style siblings. It does not name the sibling it contrasts with, so the 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?

Gives a clear precondition: the view must already be prepared by its producer tool, and you must pass that exact viewRef. The 'Never repeats browser actions, downloads, or creates another handoff' clause effectively steers agents away from using this to re-run a session or to fetch binaries, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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