browser_trace_chain

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions aggregation of request/response bodies and console errors, and implies a read operation. However, it does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only, requires specific permissions, or has any side effects. The parameter includeBackendLogs hints at SSH requirements, but this is not disclosed in the main description.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. Every part is essential, and there is no wasted text. It is concise yet informative, capturing the core functionality and key capabilities.

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 and the absence of an output schema, the description covers the main functionality well: tracing chains and aggregating data. It specifies input methods (trace_id or time point) and data collected (request/response bodies, console errors). However, it does not mention the output format (e.g., list of chains) or any limitations (e.g., time range constraints). A bit more detail on what the output looks like would make it more 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?

The input schema already provides 100% description coverage for all 5 parameters, so the tool description adds minimal value beyond context. It does not detail parameter usage or provide additional semantics beyond what the schema offers. The baseline is 3, and the description meets that without exceeding it.

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's purpose: tracing the full request chain from frontend to API to backend using trace_id or time point. It specifies the resource ('全链路调用链') and the action ('追溯'). The description differentiates from sibling tools like browser_network_detail (focus on network requests) and browser_flow (step flows) by emphasizing full chain aggregation.

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 usage for tracing chains via trace_id or time point, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like browser_network_detail or browser_trace_start/stop. No guidance on prerequisites or when not to use is provided. Given the many sibling tools, more explicit usage context would be helpful.

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