browser_install

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 explains the tool's purpose and trigger condition but doesn't describe what happens during installation (e.g., download size, time, network requirements), potential side effects, or what constitutes successful completion. It provides basic context but lacks richer behavioral details needed for a mutation tool.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each serve a distinct purpose: the first states what the tool does, and the second provides usage guidance. There's zero wasted language, and the information is front-loaded with the core functionality stated immediately.

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 this is a mutation tool (installation) with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good context about when to use it and what it does. However, it doesn't explain what happens after installation completes or what the agent should expect, leaving some gaps in completeness for a tool that modifies system state.

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%, with both parameters (withDeps, force) well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting without additional value from the description.

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 specific action ('Install Playwright Chromium browser binary') and resource ('Chromium browser binary'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like fetch_url and fetch_urls which perform different operations. It provides a concrete use case ('if you get an error about the browser not being installed') that makes the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('if you get an error about the browser not being installed'), providing clear contextual guidance. While it doesn't mention alternatives or exclusions, the specific error-based trigger makes usage guidelines comprehensive and actionable for the stated purpose.

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