page_state

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It clearly frames the operation as a read-only report and enumerates all reported fields, including the non-obvious active net_throttle emulation status. It doesn't detail output formatting or error behavior, but those are secondary for a getter.

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?

A single compact sentence front-loads the verb and resource, then packs the field list efficiently. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.

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 simple optional-parameter getter with no output schema, the description covers the returned information and the read-only nature well. The main gap is the undocumented sessionId, which is minor because the parameter is optional and its purpose is inferable from the name.

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, sessionId, has no schema description (0% coverage) and is not mentioned in the tool description. The description adds no semantic value beyond the parameter name itself, leaving the agent to infer that sessionId identifies the target session.

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 (Report) and names the resource (current page state), then enumerates the exact fields included. This makes its function unmistakable and helps distinguish it from page_snapshot or page_read.

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 the use case: when the agent needs current page URL, title, readiness, viewport, or throttle status. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over related tools like page_snapshot or page_read, nor any exclusions.

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