jev_browser_run

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that it uses live Jev (not a fallback LLM), stops on stale observations and budgets, includes a completion Noul and risk Score assessment, and defines exactly when 'verified' is true and how to report assessment_failed. It also warns against calling a separate assessment after success, which is critical operational guidance.

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 information-dense but not overly verbose. It front-loads the core purpose, then layers constraints, verification, and assessment behavior. While it includes domain-specific terms (Noul, Jev), each sentence adds value and no filler is present. The structure is logical, though a bit dense.

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?

The description covers critical operational constraints (approval rules, verification mechanism, assessment failure handling) and notes the tool has an output schema (which reduces the need to describe return values). However, it omits explanations for several parameters (goal, timeouts, confidence) and doesn't describe how the REPL session interacts with the browser or the nature of the 'budget' that stops execution. Given the tool's complexity, this is a moderate gap.

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%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies action_rules (exact role/name/action rows, fill requires explicit value) and explains completion_text/completion_url verification, but it leaves goal, target_id, timeout_s, max_steps, min_confidence, and total_timeout_s undefined. Only 3 of 9 parameters are meaningfully described, which is insufficient for a tool with no schema descriptions.

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 runs a sequence of 'observe → Jev → execute' in a persistent REPL session, giving a specific verb and resource. It doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like jev_step or jev_validate, but the composite flow is distinctive enough that an agent can infer its purpose.

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 usage for end-to-end browser automation ('Run observe → Jev → execute') and states constraints like 'Supports click/focus/fill only' and 'Never include an action needing ungranted user approval.' However, it doesn't explicitly say when to prefer this tool over siblings or when not to use it, leaving the selection logic to inference.

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