browser_smoke_test

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only lists the checks performed but does not mention potential side effects, authentication needs, or whether the tool modifies page state. For a testing tool, this is insufficient.

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 sentence, efficiently conveying the tool's purpose and key capabilities without wasted words. It is front-loaded with the key term '一键冒烟测试'.

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?

With no output schema, the description mentions returning a comprehensive score and detailed results, but does not specify the scoring scale or the structure of detailed results. Given the tool's complexity, more details would be beneficial.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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 one-click smoke test that performs five specific checks (page load, JS errors, HTTP errors, accessibility, console warnings) and returns a comprehensive score and detailed results. This specificity distinguishes it from sibling tools like browser_errors_aggregate or browser_a11y_check.

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 quick, initial validation but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like browser_errors_aggregate or browser_a11y_check. No when-not-to-use or prerequisite information is provided.

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