browser.inspect_page

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool avoids returning full DOM content, indicating output is explicitly bounded and safe. However, it does not explain other important traits like whether it is read-only, how it handles dynamic content, or any limits on the summary beyond the DOM non-dumping behavior.

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 sentence with no filler words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. It earns its place by clearly communicating the core purpose. However, given five parameters and no other context, the brevity approaches under-specification rather than pure conciseness.

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?

This tool has five parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description only provides a one-sentence summary. It does not describe what the returned summary contains, what each parameter controls, or what the response looks like. This is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior in context.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description provides zero explanation of the five parameters (browser_session_id, max_links, include_links, max_text_chars, include_visible_text). It fails to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions, leaving all parameter semantics entirely to the agent's inference.

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 states a specific verb+resource: 'Returns a safe page summary' – explicitly defining the action (returning) and object (page summary). It also distinguishes the tool from siblings by emphasizing 'safe' and 'without dumping arbitrary full DOM content', which sets it apart as a bounded, summary-only inspection tool.

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 implies the tool should be used when you need a page summary, and the 'without dumping arbitrary full DOM content' phrase hints at avoiding heavy DOM dumps. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like listing.inspect_current or browser.open_url, nor does it name any specific sibling as an alternative.

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