browser_timetravel

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses what is reconstructed (screen, storage, cookies, etc.) and that it works on past or live sessions. However, it omits side effects, permissions, failure modes, or performance implications. It does not contradict any structured fields.

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 front-loaded with the purpose and key capabilities. It uses some flamboyant language but remains efficient. A minor improvement could be trimming redundant emphasis.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (time travel reconstruction, 5 params, no output schema, many siblings), the description covers what it does, how to use it, and the scope. It does not specify return values, but this is acceptable without an output schema. Overall, it provides sufficient context for an agent.

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%. The description adds value by explaining the meaning of parameters like beforeLastError, at, seq, and windowMs with context (e.g., 'most useful' for beforeLastError). This goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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 explicitly states the tool reconstructs everything at a single moment, distinguishing it from snapshot tools. It lists the reconstructed elements and contrasts with siblings like browser_recall_site or browser_get_timeline, making the purpose very clear.

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 explains anchoring options (at, seq, beforeLastError) and recommends beforeLastError as most useful. It mentions operating on past or live sessions. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or list alternative tools for specific cases, leaving some room for improvement.

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