browser_recover

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently reveals the two-step destructive/recovery behavior: terminating the running script, disabling page scripts, and re-enabling them via scripts:true. It also states that the tool reports which step worked, which is more than enough absent annotations.

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?

Three dense sentences carry the full purpose, procedure, parameters, reporting behavior, and fallback route. It is front-loaded with the core action and contains no filler or repeated schema information.

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 tool has moderate complexity and no output schema, but the description covers the main procedure, the scripts toggle, and what the tool reports. The sessionId parameter and exact return structure are not detailed, so it is not fully complete, but it is quite close for a recovery tool.

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 description adds meaningful context for the scripts parameter by tying it to the recovery flow ('call again with scripts:true to turn them back on'), but the sessionId parameter is not explained anywhere in the description. With schema coverage at 50%, the other parameter remains opaque, so this is only minimally sufficient.

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: 'Unfreeze a page whose JavaScript is pinned,' and clearly distinguishes this tool from the named sibling browser_close: 'If nothing helps, browser_close is bounded and force-kills an owned Chrome.' This leaves no ambiguity about what browser_recover does.

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 explicitly states the triggering condition ('tools timing out, tab unresponsive'), describes the recovery steps, explains how to re-enable scripts afterward, and names the fallback alternative (browser_close). This is strong when-to-use and alternative guidance.

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