Read a browser session

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, non-openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that section=lists scans at no AI cost and is live-tested, and that map output is evidence to verify — useful context beyond annotations. It does not describe pagination behavior for non-policy sections, output format, or rate limits, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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?

Information-dense but front-loaded with the section definitions before procedures. However, the middle section is a run-on that jumps between the 'for ONE list/search API' workflow and section=lists scanning, making it harder to parse. Could be tighter without losing essential details.

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 no output schema and a complex tool with five distinct sections, the description is substantially complete: it covers all section modes, their purposes, and the integration path with writ_browser_compose. It lacks detail on offset/max_chars paging behavior and exact output shape, but for a multi-modal read tool it is mostly sufficient.

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 75%, so most parameters are already documented in the schema (section enum, offset, max_chars). The description adds meaning to section values (what page vs map vs lists vs explorer vs concierge_api returns) that goes beyond the schema's terse enum listing. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema does the heavy lifting and the description adds some section semantics.

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 (Read) and resource (browser session context), then enumerates the sections and their distinct outputs — live page state, build map, list scanning, and policy reference. This is far more precise than the sibling read tools like Writ_browser_network or writ_browser_sessions, which read different facets of a session.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use each section: section=lists is for scanning results pages and must be read BEFORE probing by hand; section=map is for the build; policy sections are for unusual flows and not a prerequisite. Directs the agent to pass define_function to writ_browser_compose, naming a sibling and the handoff.

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