browser_observe

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and idempotent, and the description adds meaningful behavioral details: the page is re-read, the result may be a full element table or a delta depending on changes, and include_json appends a machine-readable copy. This gives the agent an accurate picture of what to expect without contradicting the 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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: the core behavior appears in the first line, followed by concise parameter guidance. Every sentence adds useful information, and there is no filler or repetition.

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 description, annotations, and output schema together cover the important aspects: read-only behavior, mode selection, and return-style options. The main gaps are the undocumented session and include_text parameters and the lack of an explicit pointer to sibling tools, but these are lower-risk because the core usage is clear.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden. It explains mode and include_json well, but it does not cover session or include_text, leaving those two parameters undocumented in both schema and description. It partially compensates for the schema gap but not fully.

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 'Re-read the page' and names the concrete output ('new element table, or a delta if little changed'), making the operation and resource clear. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like browser_act or browser_assert, which are action/assertion tools rather than observation tools.

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 explains when to use each mode: 'auto' for delta when possible, 'full' after a big change, and 'delta' to force. It also tells the agent when to set include_json=True, namely when planning programmatically over the element table.

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