runBrowserLiveSession

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but lacks critical behavioral details. It mentions using BrowserStack's cloud infrastructure and manual checking, but doesn't disclose whether this starts a live session, requires authentication, has time/rate limits, costs, or what happens after the check. For a tool with 5 required parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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?

Two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and use cases without wasted words. The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the main purpose, though it could be slightly more structured with bullet points for use cases.

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 5 required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides adequate purpose and usage context but lacks completeness about behavioral aspects (e.g., session management, authentication, limitations). It's minimally viable for understanding what the tool does but insufficient for understanding how it behaves during/after execution.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly with examples and guidance. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying these parameters are needed for browser/OS/URL selection. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'manually check their website on a particular browser and OS combination using BrowserStack's cloud infrastructure' with specific use cases like debugging layout issues. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on manual website testing (vs. getFailuresInLastRun for failures, runAppLiveSession for apps, etc.), though not explicitly contrasting each sibling.

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 it: 'when user wants to manually check their website on a particular browser and OS combination' for debugging layout/compatibility issues. It doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives among siblings, but the context strongly implies this is for manual website testing vs. automated testing or other functions.

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