browser_control_media

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It only lists actions and references external docs. It does not mention error handling, side effects, or what happens if the selector is invalid. The 'see browser_docs' note is insufficient within the description itself.

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 sentence of 9 words, very concise with no redundant information. It front-loads the purpose and actions. However, it could be more informative without losing conciseness.

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 lacks critical context: no output schema, no mention of page requirement, no error handling, and no explanation of what the tool returns. For a tool with 3 parameters and no annotations, this is insufficient for a complete understanding.

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 67%, with 'selector' and 'value' having descriptions. The description lists 'play, pause, seek, mute' but does not add meaning beyond the enum. It misses 'unmute' and provides no extra context for the parameters. Baseline is 3 given moderate coverage.

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 the tool controls a media element and lists the actions: play, pause, seek, mute. It identifies the specific resource and operations, making the purpose clear. However, it does not distinguish it from sibling media tools like browser_get_media_summary or browser_start_video_recording.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus others. There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or alternatives. The phrase 'see browser_docs' defers context but does not help the agent decide when to use this tool.

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