how-to-use

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses nothing about side effects, return shape, prerequisites, or limitations. The text is a placeholder and adds no transparency about how the tool behaves.

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 short but not usefully concise; it is under-specified placeholder text that does not earn its place. A single vague sentence without concrete content is closer to omission than to effective conciseness.

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?

Even though the tool is simple with one parameter, the description gives an agent almost nothing to work with. It does not explain what 'checkpoint' or 'hmr' sections contain, what the output looks like, or how this tool fits into the broader browser automation context. This is incomplete for reliable invocation.

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 100%, including a meaningful enum and description for the 'section' parameter. Per the rubric, this warrants a baseline 3 even without parameter details in the description. The description adds no extra parameter meaning, but the schema already documents the single parameter adequately.

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 is a tautology: "Description of how to use the server" essentially restates the tool name without saying what the tool actually does. It does not specify a concrete verb, what resource it operates on, or what outcome the agent can expect.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools. There is no context, no alternatives, and no exclusions. The section enum hints at checkpoint/hmr content, but the description itself gives no usage direction.

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