browser_trace

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral load; it does disclose what the returned records contain, which is the core value. However, it never states that this is a read-only diagnostic view, the ordering of the returned actions, any cap on entries, or whether the log spans the session or browser lifetime.

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?

A single compact sentence with the salient content (the returned fields) placed before the purpose clause; no filler. The dense parenthetical is justified because each field is informative.

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?

Adequate for a small read-only-looking tool: the description explains the returned record shape in lieu of an output schema. Gaps remain around the undocumented 'limit' parameter and the scope/retention of the action log, which matter 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the single parameter 'limit' is documented nowhere; the description does not mention it at all, leaving an agent to guess whether it is a count of actions, a time bound, or a default. It fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 specific resource and verb: the most recent executed actions, enumerating the fields returned (tool, arguments, duration, URL, result) and naming the intent (debugging/auditing). It distinguishes itself from action-performing siblings, though it never contrasts with near-neighbors like browser_history, browser_events or browser_stats.

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 clause 'para depurar o auditar' implies the use case but gives no explicit when-to-use vs the overlapping siblings (browser_history, browser_events, browser_console, browser_stats) and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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