Read browser events

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the event categories and the notion of 'recent' events, which is useful context. It doesn't disclose pagination behavior, ordering guarantees, or what happens when no events exist, but the annotations carry the main behavioral burden.

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 sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then lists the event categories. It is concise and every word earns its place, though it could be slightly more structured with a second sentence for usage guidance.

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 read-only, idempotent tool with no required parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly adequate. The main gap is that it doesn't explain the afterSequence parameter or describe the return format, but the annotations cover the safety profile and the event list gives a good sense of what will be returned.

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 for the two parameters. The description mentions 'recent' events, which hints at the limit parameter, but it doesn't explain afterSequence at all. The parameter names are fairly self-explanatory, but the description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema.

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 states a clear verb ('Read') and resource ('browser events'), and enumerates the event categories (relay, navigation, DOM revision, request, download, error, lifecycle). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like browser_snapshot or browser_action, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 this is for reading event history rather than taking actions or capturing snapshots, which helps an agent choose it over browser_action or browser_snapshot. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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