browser_step

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the recorded artifacts (screenshot, DOM snapshot, error summary) but omits behavioral traits like idempotency, side effects, or prerequisites (e.g., active browser session). Adequate but with gaps.

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?

Single sentence that is front-loaded with the action verb and key artifacts. No wasted words; every part adds value. Appropriate length for the tool's simplicity.

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 simplicity (5 optional params, no output schema), the description covers core purpose. However, with no annotations and a list of 80+ siblings, more context on evidence storage or chain integration would be beneficial. Still not critically incomplete.

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% and descriptions are present. The tool description repeats the general idea ('screenshot, DOM, error summary') but adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's per-parameter descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool records evidence for verification steps, combining screenshot, DOM snapshot, and error summary. This contrasts with siblings like browser_screenshot (only screenshot) or browser_snapshot (only DOM), providing a unique composite purpose.

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 during verification steps ('record current verification step evidence') but does not explicitly state when to use or avoid alternatives. Given the sibling list, it is clear this is for documenting steps, but no exclusions or context are provided.

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