browser_export_repro

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 what is exported (actions, navigations, network failures), but does not mention whether the session is modified, whether it requires specific permissions, or the behavior when savePath is omitted. The export nature implies read-only, but this is not explicitly 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 consists of two sentences with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the verb 'Export' and clearly conveys the purpose and content. 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 tool has low complexity (one optional param, no output schema). The description explains what is exported and the use case. However, it does not specify what happens when savePath is omitted (presumably returns data in response) or describe the output format explicitly.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for the single optional parameter savePath, which is described as 'Optional path... to also write the repro bundle JSON.' The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score 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 exports a portable reproduction bundle containing actions, navigations, and network failures. It uses specific verbs ('export', 'turn into') and specifies the output. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool browser_export_har, which exports a different format (HAR).

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 explicitly says to use this tool after reproducing a bug, to generate a shareable repro script. This provides clear context for when to use it, but it does not mention when not to use it or alternatives like browser_export_har.

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