browse

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is session-based, reads a page, can return LOGIN_REQUIRED, and defines a retry flow. It does not mention failure modes for missing sessions, but the read behavior and auth handling are transparent.

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?

Two short paragraphs with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the auth-failure workflow is compressed into a precise instruction sequence.

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 is complete for a simple read tool: it states what it reads, how the session/url interact, and how to recover from LOGIN_REQUIRED. The only minor omission is explicitly pointing to list_sessions or defining where a named session comes from.

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 coverage is 0%, but both parameters are addressed in prose: 'named session' defines name, and 'Omit url to reuse the sign_in url' gives meaningful semantics for url beyond its optional/null 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?

Description opens with 'Read a page using a named session,' which names a specific verb, resource, and mechanism. This clearly differentiates browsing from the sibling sign_in/complete_sign_in/list_sessions/revoke operations.

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?

It gives two explicit usage rules: omit url to reuse the sign_in url, and if the result is LOGIN_REQUIRED, call sign_in, wait, complete_sign_in, then retry. This routes the agent to the correct sibling workflow without inference.

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