get_state_delta

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: it computes delta, returns only added/removed/modified, and returns null if no changes. It also explains transient changes like toast notifications. This is comprehensive.

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 well-structured with bold headings and bullet points for return types and examples. It is slightly verbose but every sentence adds value, and the use of examples enhances clarity.

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 no output schema, the description fully explains the return structure (added, removed, modified, null) and provides concrete use cases. It is complete for the tool's purpose.

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 tool has no parameters (schema coverage 100%), so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter details; it correctly focuses on the tool's purpose and output.

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 computes a structural delta between current page state and last checkpoint, returning only added, removed, modified nodes. It distinguishes from siblings like browser_state_diff and get_semantic_surface by focusing on differential streaming.

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 every action and lists concrete scenarios (modals, spinners, button labels, toasts). It does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, but usage context is well-defined.

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