gk_browser

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden and does well: it reveals fallback behavior, the prefer_chrome_devtools return, the override flag, and the unknown-action allowed-list behavior. It omits side-effect details (e.g., whether actions mutate state) but the core routing and discovery behaviors are clearly disclosed.

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 three dense sentences with the critical condition front-loaded ('Playwright fallback ONLY when...'). Every sentence adds unique value, and there is no fluff or repetition of schema fields.

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 the output schema exists, the description need not restate return values. It covers the routing condition, peer preference, override, and error/unknown-action behavior. The 7 actions are not enumerated, but the tool self-describes via the allowed-list mechanism, making the description functionally complete for agent use.

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 must compensate. It only says 'Pass action= and optional args={}' and mentions '7 actions' with unknown-action discovery. This adds basic semantics but doesn't enumerate the 7 actions or explain args structure; the allowed-list mechanism partially mitigates the gap.

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 identifies the tool as a Playwright fallback and distinguishes it from chrome-devtools, but it never names a concrete verb/resource (e.g., 'navigate', 'click'). It relies on the tool name and the mention of '7 actions' to imply browser automation, which is clear but not fully explicit.

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?

Usage is explicitly conditional: use only when chrome-devtools is NOT on the host, and if chrome-devtools is listed, prefer that peer first. It also provides an override mechanism (force_gk_browser=1), making the when/when-not guidance unambiguous.

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