browser_export

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 transparently states dependency behavior, the return of install instructions on missing libraries, and the 'no silent installs' policy. It omits details like success return value or overwrite behavior, but the core side effects and failure paths are well covered.

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 tight two-sentence structure. The first sentence front-loads the primary purpose ('Export findings/text to a file'), and the second delivers dependency and policy information. Every word earns its place, with no filler or repetition of schema fields.

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 with a simple four-parameter schema and no output schema, the description covers the critical nuance: which formats work out of the box and what happens when dependencies are missing. It does not describe the success return value (e.g., written file path), but an agent can reasonably infer the action's outcome. The main missing piece is a note on whether an existing output file is overwritten.

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 schema already covers all four parameters with 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful extra context by clarifying format-specific dependencies (md/txt/html vs docx/pdf/pptx), which is not present in the format property's schema description. This helps the agent understand why certain enum values may trigger install instructions.

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 starts with a clear verb and resource: 'Export findings/text to a file.' It also lists supported formatscars, which adds specificity. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool browser_download, leaving the agent to infer that 'export' means writing provided content to a file rather than downloading from a webpage.

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 gives actionable dependency guidance: md/txt/html always work, while docx/pdf/pptx need python libs and fall back to install instructions. It also states a clear policy ('No silent installs'). It does not name alternatives or explicitly state when not to use this tool, but the context strongly implies it is for writing content to a file.

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