browserless_view_data

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral constraints beyond that: it is widget-only, uses an opaque cursor, and warns against pulling replay data into the conversation.

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 core restriction and followed by concrete usage rules. Every sentence carries useful information with no wasted text.

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?

With an output schema and rich annotations already present, the description provides enough context for correct invocation: widget-only scope, required viewRef/cursor semantics, and a clear data-handling warning. The missing encoding detail is a minor gap.

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 description coverage is only 25%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for viewRef (original) and cursor (opaque), but does not explain encoding or the _prompt parameter beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states a specific role: a widget-only reader for a prepared replay, and explicitly says it is not a rendering tool. This distinguishes it from rendering-oriented siblings, though it does not fully explain what replay data or widget context means.

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?

It gives clear usage context: widget-only, not for rendering, use the original viewRef and opaque cursor, and never fetch replay data into the conversation. It does not name explicit alternative sibling tools, which keeps it from a 5.

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