browser_verify

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

Discloses recording on timeline and return value format. No annotations, so description carries full burden. Does not mention whether it waits (timeoutMs implies waiting, but says 'right now'), nor prerequisites like browser state. Decent but not fully explicit.

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?

Concise three-sentence description, front-loaded with 'ASSERT / CHECKPOINT'. No wasted words, includes key details and usage example. Highly efficient.

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?

Covers purpose, usage, and return. No output schema, but describes return shape. Could mention optionality of 'label' param, but overall complete for a tool with 4 params and moderate complexity.

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 75% (3 of 4 params described). Description adds value by referencing same vocab as browser_wait_for and giving example, but does not significantly supplement schema beyond that. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clearly states the tool is for verification/assertion ('Verify a condition holds right now') and recording results on the session timeline. Distinguishes from sibling browser_wait_for by emphasizing checkpointing vs waiting, and mentions same declarative vocabulary.

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?

Explicitly says to use for planting checkpoints while driving a flow, and compares to browser_wait_for. Does not explicitly state when not to use, but provides clear context for usage.

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