browser_state

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that refs are stable across generated markup, that required fields must be filled before submission, and that field_type determines the proper action tool. It does not explicitly state that the tool has no side effects, but the read-only verb 'List' and the overall inspection role make that sufficiently clear.

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 and front-loaded with the core action and resource. Every section earns its place: the ref usage rule, required-field warning, and field_type mapping are all necessary and presented with clean formatting. No filler or redundancy.

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?

For a form-state inspection tool, the description covers the essential operational context: what is listed, how refs work, required-field behavior, and which action tool to call for each field_type. An output schema exists, so return-value details are not needed. The only notable completeness gap is the unexplained include_text parameter, but that is already penalized under parameter semantics.

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 only parameter, include_text, is not mentioned anywhere in the description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The schema only provides the title 'Include Text' and a default, which is too sparse for an AI agent to know what the parameter controls. The description must compensate for the missing parameter documentation and does not.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List the current page's form fields, buttons and tabs.' It clearly states what the tool produces and is not easily confused with sibling action tools like fill_field or click_target, which it explicitly references as downstream consumers of its output.

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 exactly how to use the returned data: pass the provided ref back to fill_field, select_option, or click_target, and use field_type to decide which action to take. It gives clear guidance, though it does not explicitly say when not to use this tool or name alternatives for list-only tabs.

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