get_page_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it succeeds. It clearly states this is a read-only metadata operation, does not navigate, reload, click, type, or modify the page, and does not inspect arbitrary page content. It also discloses the running:false fallback instead of implying it will always return a page.

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 well organized with clear Returns and Tool selection sections and front-loads the core purpose. It is a bit longer than strictly necessary for a no-parameter tool, but the length is justified by the sibling-routing guide and the no-browser-session fallback explanation.

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?

Given zero parameters and an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: return fields, no-session behavior, read-only guarantees, and clear alternatives. No important invocation or selection context is missing.

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, so the baseline is 4; there is no parameter semantics for the description to add. The description appropriately avoids inventing parameter details and instead documents the return dictionary fields, which is the most useful input/output context for a parameterless tool.

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 and resource: getting current browser session and page metadata. It also explicitly positions itself as the primary tool for determining where the browser is after navigation or events, which clearly differentiates it from content- and element-focused siblings.

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 a detailed tool-selection guide mapping specific needs to sibling tools such as get_content, find_elements, check_for_condition, wait_for, and assert_condition. It also explains the behavior when no browser session is active, preventing incorrect agent assumptions.

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