browser_query

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the risk of large result sets and suggests mitigation, which is useful. However, it doesn't explicitly state that it's a read-only operation or describe the exact return structure, though the schema covers defaults.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, no filler. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description covers purpose, usage, and a key tip, while the schema fully describes all parameters. Without an output schema, the description gives a sense of what to expect ('element state, text, visibility, values'). It's adequate for a 6-param tool with a detailed schema.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds brief context for visible_only and limit (avoid huge result sets), but doesn't add much beyond the schema.

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 queries DOM elements by CSS selector, which is a specific verb+resource. It also explains use cases (check state, text, visibility, values) and contrasts with screenshots, though it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools like browser_eval or browser_snapshot.

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 context: use to check element state/text/visibility/values when a screenshot isn't needed. It also recommends using visible_only and limit for broad selectors, which is actionable guidance. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives.

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