Vista pagina

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

readOnlyHint already declares this is a safe read, so the bar is lower. The description does add real value beyond annotations by explaining what scope=all pulls in (header/nav/footer) and what scope=areas returns (refs for unlabeled clickable/drop zones like icons and canvas). It says nothing about row volume, truncation, or how returned refs are consumed.

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?

It is short and front-loads the resource, but the telegraphic semicolon style drops articles and verbs, making it read like notes rather than instructions. Nothing is padded, yet clarity was traded away for brevity.

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 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and only a readOnlyHint annotation, the description should explain what a returned row/ref looks like and how refs feed into browse_do. Those gaps matter for a 3-parameter inspection tool and are not covered.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden; it partially does so by explaining filter, two of the three scope values, and offset. But scope=main is undefined, filter syntax (substring vs regex) is unstated, and "offset: next rows" leaves the page size unknown.

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 phrase "Current page rows" identifies the resource (rows of the current browser page) but omits an explicit verb and never states that it reads/snapshots the page. An agent can guess it inspects the active view, but nothing distinguishes it from browse_read or browse_search.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is given: nothing says to call this before browse_do, or when to prefer browse_read/browse_search/browse_screenshot. The scope values imply some usage but the agent must infer it.

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