browser_watch

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It transparently explains the recording-polling model, indicating that events are captured asynchronously and retrieved via polling. It also lists the event types. It does not mention resource limits or automatic cleanup, but the schema's 'stop' action covers cleanup, and the overall behavior is well conveyed.

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, using two sentences to convey the core behavior and workflow. The 'GROUNDBREAKING:' prefix is unnecessary hype and slightly detracts, but overall the description is well-structured and appropriately sized.

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 (two parameters, no nested objects) and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: what events are captured, the start-poll-stop workflow, and the fact that events are collected over time. It could be more specific about the return format, but this is not critical for basic usage.

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 fully documents the 'action' and 'events' parameters. The description enumerates event types but adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema provides. 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: 'Live capture of page events (console, network, navigation, exceptions).' It uses a specific verb 'capture' with a resource, and the focus on page events distinguishes it from sibling navigation and interaction tools.

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 a clear usage pattern: 'Start recording, browse around, then poll to see everything that happened.' This implies when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly discuss alternatives or when not to use it. The workflow guidance is strong enough to guide an agent.

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