browser_full_regression

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

Given no annotations, the description carries the burden. It describes automatic discovery, clicking, error checks, and cycle verification. It mentions visible mode for real-time monitoring, but lacks disclosure of potential side effects like navigation, state changes, or errors triggered by exhaustive clicking.

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 paragraph with useful detail, but it could be more structured (e.g., bullet points). It front-loads the main purpose and then lists behavior. No wasted sentences.

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?

For a complex tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description provides a good overview of what it does but lacks details on return values, error handling, or when it might fail. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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 100%, so baseline 3 is appropriate. The description adds context for visible (shows browser for monitoring) and default URL, but other parameters like timeout, maxDepth, maxItems, includeSubMenus have meanings that are clear from names and schema descriptions. The description does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema.

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 performs 'full-feature closed-loop regression testing', automatically discovering and clicking interactive elements, checking for errors, and verifying cycle completeness. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like browser_smoke_test or browser_chain by specifying a comprehensive regression scope.

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 exhaustive regression testing but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives, prerequisites, or when to avoid. The phrase 'forced execution' suggests it may run regardless of state, but no further context is given.

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