browser_export

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 does not mention side effects like file creation, overwriting, permissions, or whether data is returned when no filePath is given. The phrase '限时免费中' is promotional and irrelevant. There is no contradiction with annotations (none exist), but the description fails to disclose any behavioral details beyond the basic action.

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 very short and front-loads the purpose in the first sentence. However, the second sentence '限时免费中' (limited-time free) is promotional and not useful for an agent deciding when to call the tool. This is minor noise, but the overall structure is efficient and clear.

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 and no annotations, the description needs to cover expected return values, edge cases, and usage context. It does not mention what happens when filePath is omitted (output to result), the default format, or that selector is required. It also lacks guidance on when this tool is preferred over siblings. The description is too sparse for an agent to call it correctly without inspecting the schema closely.

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%, with each parameter (selector, format, filePath) having a description. The tool description adds no additional meaning about parameters; it does not explain what the selector targets (tables/lists), the default format, or the behavior of filePath. Since the schema fully documents parameters, the baseline of 3 applies; the description provides no extra value.

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 states a clear verb ('export') and resource ('page data') with output formats (CSV/JSON). It is not a tautology and conveys the core action. However, it does not explicitly mention that it targets tables/lists (which is in the schema's selector description) nor does it differentiate from sibling tools like browser_extract, which might also extract data. The promotional phrase '限时免费中' adds no purpose clarity.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not say 'use this when you need to save data to a file' or contrast with browser_extract or browser_evaluate. The description provides no context for selection among siblings, leaving the agent to infer usage from the schema.

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