browser_page_info

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the useful default-behavior detail that tab_id defaults to the active tab. However, it omits read-only/safety framing, error behavior for invalid tab IDs, and return format, leaving meaningful gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 returned fields are front-loaded in a single tight sentence, and the args block adds the one detail the schema lacks. Slightly wasteful use of an 'Args:' block for a single parameter, but no filler sentences.

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 low-complexity read tool with one optional param and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient, but it leaves unaddressed the overlap with browser_bounds/browser_full_page_metrics and any failure behavior. A reader can call it, but not confidently pick it over its nearest 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%, so the description must compensate, and it does: 'tab_id: Optional tab to target. Defaults to active tab.' explains both the optionality and the default, which the bare schema (anyOf integer/null, default null) does not.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and enumerates the exact resources returned (URL, title, dimensions, scroll position), so an agent knows precisely what it yields. It does not, however, distinguish itself from overlapping siblings such as browser_bounds and browser_full_page_metrics, which likely also return dimensional/positional data.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage purely from the field list, with no routing toward browser_bounds or browser_full_page_metrics for related needs.

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