browser_extract_token

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool navigates to a settings page and reads a token, but it does not mention side effects like leaving the current page, authentication requirements, or behavior when the provider is not supported or not logged in.

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 concise sentence with no filler. The action and purpose are front-loaded, and it earns its place by stating both what happens and why.

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?

With no output schema, the description should clarify what the tool returns or whether it only navigates and leaves reading to the agent. It also omits prerequisites like authentication. For a tool that extracts a token, this is a meaningful gap.

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?

The schema already fully describes the single 'provider' parameter with 100% coverage. The description adds minor context by tying the provider to its API settings page, but it does not significantly extend the schema's meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific action ('navigate to a provider's API settings page') and the intended outcome ('read its API token from the page'). This clearly distinguishes it from generic sibling tools like browser_navigate, though it could be more explicit about whether the token is returned directly or just made available on the page.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as browser_navigate, browser_get_page_content, or browser_fetch. The intended use is inferable from the name and description, but no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided.

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