browse

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It transparently discloses the login-required failure mode and the recovery sequence, and it makes the default URL behavior explicit. It does not discuss potential side effects or error cases beyond LOGIN_REQUIRED, but 'Read a page' plus the retry protocol covers the most important behavioral context.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence adds value. The login-required retry instruction is a useful protocol placed after the main usage rule, with no extraneous filler.

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?

The description covers the main call pattern, URL reuse behavior, and the login-required retry flow, which is enough given the small parameter set and existing output schema. It could mention that valid session names come from list_sessions, but the sibling list and the phrase 'named session' make this reasonably inferable.

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. It does clarify the url parameter by explaining that omitting it reuses the sign_in url, and it associates the required name parameter with a named session. It could more explicitly define name as a session identifier created by sign_in, but the meaning is recoverable from 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Read a page using a named session.' This clearly distinguishes browse from sibling tools like sign_in, complete_sign_in, revoke, and list_sessions, which are concerned with session lifecycle rather than content retrieval.

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 explicit operational guidance: 'Omit url to reuse the sign_in url' and provides a concrete conditional workflow when the result is LOGIN_REQUIRED: 'call sign_in, wait, complete_sign_in, retry.' This tells the agent exactly when and how to react without leaving it to inference.

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