read_url_browser

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses browser-based execution and support for authentication/dynamic content, which suggests JavaScript rendering. However, it omits behavioral traits like potential slowness, failure modes, or whether it can be headless. Some transparency is given, but not comprehensive.

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, dense sentence that immediately conveys the core functionality and distinguishing features. It contains no filler and is perfectly front-loaded, making it highly efficient.

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 or annotations, the description must compensate but does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., text, HTML, screenshot) or any limitations of browser-based reading. Given the complexity of the tool, this is a significant gap, making the description incomplete.

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 input schema provides 100% description coverage for all parameters, including url, waitFor, and useExisting. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 a specific verb+resource: '使用浏览器读取网页' (use browser to read web pages), and the parenthetical features (login state, cookies, SPA pages) distinguish it from sibling tools like read_url which likely performs simple HTTP fetches. This provides a clear differentiation.

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 implies usage for scenarios requiring login, cookies, or SPA rendering through the parenthetical remark, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over read_url or provide exclusions. Guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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