Browser Verify

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

The description adds critical behavioral context beyond annotations: it requires human approval (AGGRESSIVE tag), it builds the URL itself with an unescaped payload (which could trigger dangerous actions), it files findings with severity levels, and it captures screenshots. These are not in the annotations (readOnlyHint false, openWorldHint true, destructiveHint false), so the description carries the burden well. It doesn't mention all side effects (e.g., network requests) but covers the essential ones.

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 with a leading warning, a clear purpose, and bullet-like output details. It is moderately lengthy but each sentence adds value, explaining the tool's behavior, output fields, and finding logic. It could be tightened slightly, but the structure is logical and front-loads the most important constraint (approval) and purpose.

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's complexity (browser, security testing) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the key outputs (reflection, executed, redirect, console, screenshot) and the finding levels. It also mentions evidence storage and that findings are marked needs_manual_review. It lacks explicit error handling or prerequisites, but the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to call it correctly. The output schema likely covers the return structure, so the description doesn't need to repeat it.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining url, param, and payload in detail, including that payload is passed unescaped and the tool constructs the URL. It also implies the screenshot parameter by describing evidence capture. The description gives semantic meaning that the schema's bare parameter names lack.

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 action ('Verify a candidate in a real browser and capture evidence') with clear outputs (reflection, executed, redirect) that distinguish it from sibling validation tools like xss_validate or sqli_validate. The verb 'verify' and the resource 'candidate' are concrete, and the mention of 'capture evidence' differentiates it from mere probes.

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?

It implies usage when a candidate needs browser-level confirmation (reflected XSS, execution, open redirect) and mentions the filing of findings. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives, leaving some inference to the agent. The context of 'verify a candidate' suggests it follows detection, but no exclusions are given.

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