browser_locator_suggest

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

With no annotations, the description must cover behavioral traits. It discloses that it finds visible elements and generates recommendations, implying read-only behavior. However, it does not explicitly state safety (e.g., no side effects), permissions needed, or rate limits, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

A single sentence that efficiently conveys input conditions, action, and output components. No wasted words; front-loaded with key information.

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?

The description lists output components (recommendations, scores, risks, fallback list) which is good since there is no output schema. However, it fails to clarify the conditional requirement (either selector or target required) implied by the anyOf schema, which is important context for correct invocation.

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% and each parameter has a clear description. The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline expected for high coverage.

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?

Description clearly states it finds visible elements based on existing selector or target text and generates more stable recommended selectors, scores, risks, and fallback lists. This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like browser_locator (single locator) and browser_locator_validate (validation).

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like browser_locator, browser_find, or browser_locator_validate. The description implies usage when an existing selector or target is available, but does not state when not to use or mention alternative conditions.

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