browser_download

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions clicking and verifying downloads but does not disclose side effects, timeout behavior, return values, or what happens on failure. This is insufficient for a mutation-like tool.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently conveys the core action and verification step.

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?

Despite the tool's apparent complexity (nested locator, download verification, no output schema), the description omits essential context such as expected return format, error handling, and the meaning of 'registered roots'. It is far from 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?

Schema description coverage is only 33%, and the tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning. The locator schema is described as semantic, but the description does not explain how parameters like 'locator' or 'timeout_ms' are used in the download context.

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 clicks a semantic download control and verifies completed files, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from generic browser_click by adding download verification, though 'registered roots' is ambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like browser_click or browser_upload. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios.

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