browser_bounds

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the return content (bounding rect + viewport/page sizes), which is valuable since no output schema exists. However it omits whether the element is scrolled into view, how it handles a missing element, or whether it waits, so it is only moderately transparent.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the key content (return value) comes first. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly a byproduct of under-specification rather than deliberate economy.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter description coverage, the description is the only guidance available and it is thin. It should at minimum clarify the selector parameter, tab_id behavior, and error/wait behavior for an element-measurement tool.

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 must compensate for two undocumented parameters. It never mentions `selector` or `tab_id`; "for an element" only loosely implies a selector and gives no format, syntax, or tab-scoping semantics. The schema-completion burden is left unmet.

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 states a specific verb ("Return") and specific content (getBoundingClientRect plus viewport/page sizes for an element), so an agent knows exactly what it computes. It does not distinguish itself from nearby siblings like browser_computed_style, browser_full_page_metrics, or browser_element_screenshot, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no named alternative. The agent must infer that this is the tool for measuring an element's position/size versus, say, browser_computed_style or browser_full_page_metrics. No exclusions or contextual routing are given.

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