browser.dismiss_overlay

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The word 'attempts' hints at a best-effort or possibly fallible operation, and 'deterministic' implies a fixed approach, but there is no mention of side effects, prerequisites, error behavior, or whether the overlay is permanently removed. The description adds minimal behavioral nuance beyond the raw action.

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 concise sentence with no redundant words, effectively front-loading the core action. It is appropriately short for a tool of this apparent scope, though the terseness does border on under-specification.

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 has two parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should explain the tool's operation more fully. It fails to describe how overlay_types works, the expected behavior when invoked, or any limitations. The description is insufficient for an agent to confidently select and invoke the tool correctly in all relevant situations.

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 0% and the description does not mention either parameter (browser_session_id or overlay_types). The phrase 'known overlays' might indirectly allude to overlay_types, but it does not clarify how the parameter is used, what values it accepts, or what happens if it is omitted. The description provides no compensatory value for the undocumented schema.

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 uses a specific verb 'dismiss' and a resource 'overlays', which clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like browser.open_url or browser.inspect_page. However, 'known overlays' is vague and does not define what constitutes a known overlay, preventing a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any preconditions like checking for overlay presence or handling failures. It is a bare statement of intent with no contextual instructions.

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