browser_state

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full disclosure burden. It explains both read-only (storage snapshots) and destructive operations (cookie clear/set), and mentions merging behavior. However, it could detail side effects of clearing cookies or snapshot limitations.

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, front-loaded with purpose, and every sentence provides essential information without redundancy. It efficiently conveys the merged nature, dual modes, and primary use case.

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 (6 parameters, nested objects, dual modes) and absence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers modes and actions but lacks details on return values, error handling, or browser context limitations.

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 is 3. The description summarizes the mode-based behavior but does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema descriptions. It provides general-purpose context but not parameter-specific enhancements.

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 manages browser state (Cookies & Web Storage), explicitly mentions merging legacy tools, and explains two modes with specific actions. It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling legacy tools like browser_cookies and browser_storage.

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: it's the preferred tool for debugging login state, tokens, and persistence issues, and explains when to use each mode. However, it lacks explicit exclusions or comparison with other tools like browser_snapshot or browser_har_export.

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