browser_images

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the return shape (src, alt, natural dimensions), which is meaningful since there is no output schema. However, it says nothing about whether images inside iframes are included, how 'natural dimensions' behave for unloaded/lazy images, or whether the result is scoped to the active tab.

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; the returned fields are stated immediately. It is arguably too terse rather than padded, but nothing in it is wasted.

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?

For a no-annotation, no-output-schema tool with one parameter, the description partially compensates by naming the returned fields, but it leaves the tab_id scoping semantics unexplained and gives no guidance on when to pick this tool over the many other extraction siblings.

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% and the single optional tab_id parameter is completely undocumented in both schema and description. The description does not explain whether omitting tab_id targets the active tab, a default tab, or all tabs, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Return every <img>') and even enumerates the returned fields (src, alt, natural dimensions), so the agent knows this is an image-extraction tool rather than a generic DOM dump. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like browser_links, browser_html, and browser_dom, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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 statement of when to use this instead of browser_dom, browser_html, browser_links, or browser_structured_data, all of which could surface overlapping page content. No prerequisites or context (e.g. page fully loaded) are given, so the agent must infer the use case.

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