start_pair_debug

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

No annotations provided, but description fully discloses behavior: opens visible browser, records console messages, network errors, page exceptions, navigations, clicks/fills with timestamps. Useful for agent to understand side effects. Lacks details on session termination or data retrieval.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by details. No unnecessary words. Efficient and scannable.

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?

Covers key behaviors and use case. No output schema, but description implies session recording. Could mention how to access recorded data (e.g., via get_pair_debug_context) or end session, but overall sufficient for an agent.

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 coverage is 100% (1 param with description). Description adds that url is the 'flow entry point the human will drive by hand,' which aligns with schema. Minimal additional value beyond schema.

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?

Clearly states it starts a pair-debugging session with a visible browser, records detailed events, and contrasts with scripted tests. Verb 'start' and resource 'pair-debugging session' are specific. Distinguishes from siblings like 'get_pair_debug_context' and 'read_test'.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use when the user wants to walk through a flow live...rather than writing a scripted test upfront.' Provides clear context for when to use vs. alternative approach (scripted tests). Could be more specific about prerequisites or limitations.

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