browser_frame_probe

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the probe's return fields and the interpretation of failures (counts=0 may mean canvas), which is helpful. However, it doesn't mention side effects, behavior when the frame isn't found, or that it waits for the frame to resolve (timeoutMs implies this but isn't stated).

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?

The description is a single, focused sentence that front-loads the primary output and then adds a diagnostic note. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or 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?

Without an output schema, the description compensates by listing the exact fields returned (url, title, readyState, counts, textSample) and providing a diagnostic interpretation. It's sufficient for a probe tool, though it could clarify how the results are structured or formatted.

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%: both parameters have clear descriptions (frameSelector with an example, timeoutMs with default and purpose). The tool description adds no additional parameter context, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 function: 'Run a small diagnostic inside a frame' with specific outputs (url, title, readyState, counts, textSample). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like browser_snapshot and browser_frame_inventory by focusing on DOM visibility probing.

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 gives explicit usage context: 'Use to see if Playwright can see DOM (if probe fails or counts=0, UI may be canvas).' This tells the agent when to choose this tool, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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