Browser Macro

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the concept but says nothing about persistence scope (are macros stored globally or per session?), whether replay is atomic or partial on failure, or what list/delete do. For a stateful tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the save-then-replay lifecycle and includes a concrete example. Efficient, though it devotes words to the save/run path while omitting the list/delete actions the schema exposes.

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?

Covers the core save/replay mental model but is thin for a stateful, multi-action tool with no annotations and no output schema. It omits what happens when a macro step fails, where macros are stored, and how the list/delete actions behave.

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%, so all five parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description reinforces only the 'name' and replay mechanics, adding little beyond the structured fields, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Clear verb and resource: 'Save a named sequence of tool calls once, then replay it by name'. The macro concept is distinct from all browser_* siblings. However, the description frames the tool only around save/run, while the schema supports list and delete actions too, leaving the full purpose slightly undersold.

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?

Provides an implied use case ('collapses a repeated multi-step flow') and an example ('login'), which suggests when to reach for a macro. But there is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of the list/delete actions, and no routing to alternatives.

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