browser_errors

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the exact error types included, time-sorting, and cursor behavior. It does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only or describe the return structure, which is a minor gap for a view 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, compact sentence that front-loads the core purpose, includes usage guidance, and contains no redundant wording. It is appropriately sized and easy to scan.

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 essential purpose and gives a clear usage trigger, but without an output schema or annotations, it does not describe the return format, pagination details, or potential side effects. For a troubleshooting tool, the missing output structure and read-only confirmation leave notable gaps.

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%, and the description does not explain the 'limit' or 'task_id' parameters. Only a hint is given about the cursor ('增量游标同 browser_console'), which partially clarifies 'since'. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of parameter documentation.

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 that the tool merges JS uncaught exceptions, console errors, and failed requests (network failures or HTTP>=400) into a time-sorted view. It uses the phrase '一站式排障' (one-stop troubleshooting) and differentiates itself from sibling tools like browser_console and browser_network by being a combined view.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: '点了没反应/页面白屏时先调它' (call it first when clicks don't respond or page is blank). It also references the incremental cursor being the same as browser_console, giving a clear analogy for its usage pattern.

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