browser_geometry

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 only states the return value but fails to disclose important traits such as authentication requirements (e.g., must the tab be part of a collaboration session?), error handling for non-shared tabs, rate limits, or the meaning of 'private' and 'bounded.' Minimal transparency for a tool with complex prerequisites.

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 12-word sentence, making it concise and efficient. It front-loads the key action and output. However, the brevity comes at the cost of completeness; a second sentence clarifying the geometry type or prerequisite would improve it without losing conciseness.

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 (nested schema, 3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, many sibling tools), the description is significantly incomplete. It does not explain what 'bounded private geometry' means operationally, how the collaboration_id is obtained, how the locator is constructed, or what the return format looks like. The agent lacks enough context to use this tool correctly.

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% (only the locator field has a description). The tool description adds no explanation for any of the three parameters (collaboration_id, locator, max_items). It does not clarify how collaboration_id relates to sharing, how locator filters elements, or the purpose of max_items. The description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('bounded private geometry for semantic elements') with context ('explicitly shared tab'). This distinguishes it from visual capture tools like browser_screenshot or browser_snapshot. However, the term 'bounded private geometry' could be more explicit (e.g., bounding boxes or coordinates) to remove ambiguity.

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 like browser_snapshot, browser_screenshot, or browser_diagnostics. It only mentions 'explicitly shared tab' as a prerequisite but does not state when the agent should prefer this tool or what conditions exclude its use. No explicit when-not or alternative tools are mentioned.

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