browser_bridge_request

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It clearly states the tool is NOT read-only and that requests run with the tab's session, potentially mutating remote state. It also mentions that streaming responses are not supported. This provides essential behavioral context beyond the basic purpose. However, it does not disclose rate limits or detailed auth requirements beyond the token, but the mutation warning is prominent.

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 concise, with two well-structured paragraphs. The first sentence front-loads the action and output. Subsequent sentences cover prerequisites, behavioral warnings, URL behavior, and limitations. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 key aspects: what the tool does, prerequisites, behavioral warnings, URL constraints, credential modes, and limitation (no streaming). Given the lack of output schema and annotations, it provides sufficient context. It could mention error handling or return format details more explicitly, but the mention of 'response envelope (status, headers, body) as YAML' is adequate. Score 4 for good completeness relative to complexity.

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 100%, meaning every parameter is described in the JSON Schema. The tool description adds some context (e.g., referencing the CLI, explaining relative URL, credential modes) but does not significantly expand on what is already in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate; the description does not greatly improve parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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?

Description clearly states the action: sending an HTTP request through a browser-bridge tab and returning the response. It specifies the resource (running browser-bridge tab) and the output format (YAML envelope). Distinguishes itself from sibling tools which are unrelated (e.g., Jira, Confluence tools) by referencing the specific browser bridge context and CLI command.

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?

Description explains prerequisites: requires a running bridge and a session token from environment variable or file. It explicitly warns that the tool is not read-only and can mutate remote state with non-GET methods. It clarifies URL behavior (relative to origin unless allow_origin set). However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or mention alternative tools, but the context is clear enough.

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