browser_artifacts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It states the tool lists artifacts but does not disclose that it is likely a read-only, non-destructive operation. Behavioral traits such as side effects or access methods are missing.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and lists the artifact types efficiently. Every part adds value.

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, the description adequately explains the function but does not specify the return format (e.g., list of paths or names). It is minimally sufficient but could improve by describing what the user receives.

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 input schema is empty (zero parameters), so baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and it meets that baseline without repetition.

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 clearly states the tool lists evidence artifacts (screenshots, trace.zip, HAR, HTML reports, visual artifacts, log files, checkpoint) from MCP browser verification. It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools like browser_artifacts_clear.

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 implies usage after browser verification to view artifacts but does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives (e.g., browser_artifacts_clear for clearing). No exclusion criteria are provided.

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