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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It mentions the tool 'returns' and 'saves as a resource,' implying output behavior, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'save as a resource' entails (e.g., format, location). This is a significant gap for a tool that performs capture and save operations.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action. It could be slightly more structured by separating the capture and save aspects, but it's concise with minimal waste.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return value (e.g., image data, URL), error handling, or dependencies on other tools like browserbase_session_create. For a screenshot tool with potential complexity, this leaves gaps in understanding its full behavior.

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?

The input schema has 1 parameter with 100% coverage, providing a clear description. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying the 'name' parameter might be used for the screenshot, but this is already covered in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the action ('capture a full-page screenshot') and the resource (screenshot), specifying it's full-page. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from potential sibling tools like browserbase_stagehand_observe, which might also involve visual capture, though the 'full-page' aspect provides some differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an active session), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like browserbase_stagehand_extract, which might handle other types of data extraction.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that closing resets the active context, which is useful behavioral information, but does not mention potential side effects like data loss, permissions needed, or error handling. It adds some value but lacks comprehensive details.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the key action ('Close') and purpose. Every word earns its place with no waste, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (simple close operation with no parameters) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It covers the basic action and context reset, but for a tool that might affect session state, more details on implications or prerequisites could enhance completeness.

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?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not add param info, which is appropriate, but baseline is 4 for zero parameters as it avoids redundancy.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Close') and target resource ('the current Browserbase session'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'browserbase_session_create' by indicating it terminates rather than initiates a session. It's precise and avoids tautology.

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 implies usage context ('reset the active context'), suggesting it should be used to clean up after a session, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. It provides clear context without exclusions.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions that sessions can be created or reused and set as active, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, what happens if a sessionId is invalid, or how long sessions persist. For a tool that likely involves resource allocation and state management, this is a significant gap.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the key action and resource. Every word earns its place, with no wasted verbiage, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given the complexity of session management (likely involving state, resources, and potential side effects), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'set as active' means in practice, what the tool returns, or any prerequisites. For a tool with such implications, more context is needed.

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 100%, with the schema fully documenting the optional sessionId parameter. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying that sessionId is for reuse, but doesn't provide additional semantics like format examples or edge cases. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the action ('Create or reuse') and resource ('Browserbase browser session'), and specifies it will be 'set as active'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'browserbase_session_close' by being about creation rather than termination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other session-related tools if they exist beyond the listed siblings.

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 implies usage when needing a browser session, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'browserbase_stagehand_navigate' or other session tools. It mentions reusing an existing session via sessionId, providing some context, but lacks clear guidance on when to create new versus reuse or when not to use this tool.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Perform a single action' implies a write/mutation operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires specific page states, what happens on failure, or any rate limits. The description lacks crucial behavioral context for a tool that modifies page state.

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 extremely concise - a single sentence with parenthetical examples. Every word earns its place, and the core purpose is front-loaded without unnecessary elaboration.

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 tool that performs page actions (likely mutations) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what constitutes a valid action, what the tool returns, error conditions, or how it relates to other browser automation tools. The context signals indicate complexity (nested objects) that isn't addressed.

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?

The description adds no parameter information beyond what's already in the schema, which has 100% coverage. The schema descriptions thoroughly explain both 'action' and 'variables' parameters, including usage examples and constraints. The description doesn't compensate with additional semantic context, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose as 'Perform a single action on the page' with examples (click, type), which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like browserbase_stagehand_extract or browserbase_stagehand_observe, which likely involve different types of page interactions.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of when this tool is appropriate compared to other stagehand tools or browserbase_screenshot, nor any prerequisites or exclusions for its use.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions extraction 'from the current page' implying it operates within an existing browser context, but doesn't specify prerequisites (e.g., requires an active session), performance characteristics (e.g., execution time, reliability), or what happens on failure. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 extremely concise - a single sentence that efficiently communicates the core functionality. Every word earns its place: 'Extract' (action), 'structured data or text' (what), 'from the current page' (where), 'using an instruction' (how). There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (extraction operation with one parameter) and 100% schema coverage but no annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does but doesn't address behavioral aspects, usage context, or output format. For a tool that performs content extraction without safety annotations, more guidance would be beneficial.

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?

The description doesn't add meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's already in the input schema. The schema has 100% coverage with a detailed description of the 'instruction' parameter including examples. The tool description merely repeats 'using an instruction' without providing additional context about parameter usage or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Extract structured data or text from the current page using an instruction.' It specifies the verb (extract), resource (structured data or text from current page), and mechanism (using an instruction). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'browserbase_stagehand_observe' which might also involve page content analysis.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'browserbase_stagehand_observe' (which might monitor page content) and 'browserbase_screenshot' (which captures visual data), there's no indication of when extraction is preferred over observation or other methods. The description only states what the tool does, not when it's appropriate.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool returns the URL but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires an active session, potential errors if no page is loaded, or if it's a read-only operation. The description is minimal and lacks important context.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose with zero wasted words. Every part of the sentence ('Return the current page URL (full URL with query/fragment)') directly contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema), the description is adequate but has gaps. It explains what the tool does but lacks context about session requirements or error conditions. For a tool with no annotations, it should provide more behavioral transparency to be fully complete.

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?

There are 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, which is correct for a parameterless tool, earning a baseline score of 4.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Return') and resource ('current page URL'), including precise details about what's returned ('full URL with query/fragment'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like navigation or observation tools by focusing solely on URL retrieval.

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 implies usage context (when you need the current page URL), but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'browserbase_stagehand_observe' or 'browserbase_stagehand_extract'. No guidance is provided about prerequisites or exclusions.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool performs a navigation action, which implies it might load a webpage and could involve network delays or errors. However, it lacks details on behavioral traits like error handling, timeouts, or what happens if the URL is invalid, leaving gaps in transparency for a tool with potential operational risks.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with two sentences that directly convey the purpose and usage guidelines without any wasted words. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (a navigation action with one parameter) and no annotations or output schema, the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It covers the basic purpose and usage but lacks details on behavioral aspects like what happens on success or failure, which would be helpful for an AI agent to understand the full context of invoking this 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'url' parameter documented as 'The URL to navigate to.' The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as URL format requirements or examples. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately handles the parameter semantics without extra value from the description.

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 clearly states the action ('Navigate to a URL') and resource ('in the browser'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this navigation tool from sibling tools like 'browserbase_stagehand_get_url' or 'browserbase_stagehand_observe', which might also involve URL operations, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 provides clear usage context: 'Only use this tool with URLs you're confident will work and be up to date. Otherwise, use https://google.com as the starting point.' This offers practical guidance on when to use it and suggests an alternative starting point, but it doesn't explicitly name sibling tools as alternatives or specify when not to use it in relation to them, such as for extracting or observing URLs.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool finds interactive elements and optionally returns an action, but it doesn't cover important aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential side effects, performance considerations, or error handling. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose in a single sentence. However, the second part ('optionally return an action') could be integrated more smoothly, and there's some redundancy with the schema's detailed parameter descriptions, but overall it's efficient with zero waste.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (finding interactive elements on a web page), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the return values look like (e.g., structured data, error formats), behavioral constraints, or how it interacts with sibling tools beyond a vague reference to the 'act tool'. This leaves the agent with insufficient context for effective use.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by hinting at the purpose ('find interactive elements') but doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or usage examples for the parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Find interactive elements on the page from an instruction; optionally return an action.' It specifies the verb ('find'), resource ('interactive elements'), and scope ('from an instruction'), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'browserbase_stagehand_act' or 'browserbase_stagehand_extract', which keeps it from a perfect score.

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 implies usage by mentioning that the tool is for identifying elements to later use with the 'act tool', but it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'browserbase_stagehand_extract' or 'browserbase_screenshot'. No exclusions or clear alternatives are stated, leaving some ambiguity.

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