browser_verify

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It reveals that the tool performs a verification (likely non-destructive) and defaults to a cached state. However, it does not explicitly state side effects (e.g., read-only), nor does it describe what happens on failure (error or return value). This partial disclosure warrants a 3.

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 two sentences long, efficiently front-loading the core purpose and adding one optional detail. Every word is necessary, with no redundancy or filler.

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 purpose and a parameter nuance but lacks information about return values (no output schema) and error conditions. For a tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description should at least hint at the return type. This gap prevents a higher score, but the core functionality is adequately explained.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the 'state' parameter's purpose ('pass if querying offline; otherwise defaults to last observed state'), which exceeds the schema's generic description. It also reinforces the 'action' parameter's meaning. This justifies a 4.

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's purpose: running safety action verification on a semantic node to confirm interactability and support for click/fill/hover. It uses specific verbs and resources, distinguishing it from sibling tools like browser_act (which performs actions) and browser_evaluate (which evaluates expressions). However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 minimal usage guidance: it mentions optional 'state' for offline querying, but lacks explicit instructions on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'Use this before browser_act to verify safety'). No exclusions or prerequisites are given, leaving the agent to infer the context.

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