browser_errors

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the three modes and mentions that clear mode creates a new checkpoint. However, it does not discuss side effects, prerequisites, or limitations such as what happens to existing errors after clear, or the scope of 'this round' in view mode.

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, consisting of a short paragraph. It front-loads the purpose and version information. However, it could be better structured with bullet points or clearer separation of modes for quicker scanning.

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 has 9 parameters and no output schema, the description provides the high-level behavior but lacks specifics such as the types of errors included, what 'Top errors' means in aggregate mode, or the checkpoint mechanism. It is adequate but not fully comprehensive for a tool with this many parameters.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the mode parameter's equivalence to deprecated tools, which clarifies its semantics beyond the schema. For other parameters, the description does not add extra detail, but the schema itself is sufficiently descriptive.

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 it is a unified error management tool and explicitly mentions it replaces two deprecated tools (browser_errors_aggregate and browser_errors_clear). It specifies three modes: view (default), aggregate, and clear, each with a brief explanation. This distinguishes it from its siblings.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool versus the deprecated siblings by stating it is the unified version since v1.9.5. It explains the three modes and their purposes. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use scenarios or alternative tool suggestions.

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