browse

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a meaningful behavioral trait that annotations would not cover: that it seeds the auto-diff BASELINE, which tells the agent state is being persisted for later diffing. It does not explain what 'map' produces, whether prior baselines are overwritten, or any side effects, and the text is cut off mid-sentence.

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 leading 'TOOL 1.' is wasted tokens and the whole entry appears truncated mid-word ('BASELINE f…'), which harms structure. The core action is front-loaded reasonably well, so density is decent, but the artifact prefix and cutoff keep this from scoring higher.

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 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should explain what 'map' returns and how the baseline behaves. Instead it is truncated and omits all of that, leaving an agent unable to predict results or side effects for a tool with no other structured guidance.

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 60%, so baseline is 3. The description adds marginal meaning by framing url as a navigation target and tabId as an existing tab to bind, which the schema leaves undocumented. It says nothing about fresh, newTab, or frameId beyond the truncated schema hints.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Go to a page and map it in ONE call: navigate (or bind an existing tab)'. This distinguishes it from siblings like tabs and page_slice by emphasizing the combined navigate-and-map behavior in a single call. However, the 'TOOL 1.' prefix is noise and the description is truncated, leaving the mapping output undefined.

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?

Implies usage context by noting it can navigate or bind an existing tab, and that it seeds an auto-diff baseline, so an agent can infer this is the entry point for page analysis. But it never states when to prefer this over siblings such as page_slice, find, or tabs, nor any preconditions, so guidance stays implicit.

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