browser_sec_start_csp_monitoring

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states 'Monitor', giving no details on side effects, resource usage, or whether the tool is read-only or destructive. It lacks behavioral context beyond the bare action.

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 very short (one sentence) and front-loaded with the key action. However, the reference to 'browser_docs' is a minor inefficiency, as the description should be self-contained.

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 omits important lifecycle context: that monitoring must be stopped and violations retrieved via sibling tools. The 'see browser_docs' is insufficient for a complete understanding, especially given no output schema or annotations.

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 tool has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description does not add parameter information, but none is needed.

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 verb 'Monitor' and the resource 'Content Security Policy violations', distinguishing it from sibling tools like browser_sec_get_csp_violations and browser_sec_stop_csp_monitoring. However, it relies on 'see browser_docs' for further details, which slightly reduces clarity.

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 vs alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. It does not mention that it is part of a monitoring workflow or that it should be paired with browser_sec_stop_csp_monitoring.

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