browser_dismiss

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses visible clicks, a hard safety boundary (never accept/subscribe/sign in), and the automatic post-navigate invocation with an env-var override. It omits outcome/reporting behavior (e.g., what happens when nothing matches), so not quite a 5.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and examples, then the safety rule, then the automation note. Every clause carries information; no filler.

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 zero-input tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, safety boundaries, and auto-invocation. It leaves out failure/empty-state behavior, which is the main remaining 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?

Zero-parameter tool, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate, and it correctly implies no inputs are needed.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Cierra popups que tapan la página' with concrete examples (idioma, newsletter, cookies, Google login), which makes clear it's not a generic click. It distinguishes itself from browser_click by restricting to close/reject actions, though it doesn't name siblings explicitly.

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?

'Ya se hace solo tras browser_navigate (AGENT_AUTO_DISMISS=0 lo apaga)' tells the agent the tool is already auto-invoked and how to disable that, which is real usage context. The when-to-use trigger (popups covering the page) is implied by the constraints rather than stated as an explicit call condition, and there's no guidance on what to do if no popup is found.

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