browser_diagnose

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It describes analysis of errors and return of a report, but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, triggers side effects, or requires specific permissions. The behavioral disclosure is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the main purpose. It efficiently conveys the tool's action and output, though the first sentence is somewhat dense.

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 tool's complexity (diagnostic with 3 parameters, no output schema), the description adequately covers the return structure and analysis scope. It lacks details on edge cases or interpretation of confidence, but is sufficient 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?

All three parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds value by listing the return fields (rootCause, confidence, etc.), which goes beyond schema details and helps the agent understand diagnostic output.

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 diagnoses browser error root causes by analyzing various error types and returns a report with specific fields. It distinguishes from sibling tools like browser_errors_aggregate by focusing on root cause analysis.

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 use for error diagnosis but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like browser_errors_aggregate or browser_network_detail. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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