browser_errors

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

No annotations are provided, so the description alone must convey behavior. 'Get' loosely implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose whether errors are accumulated, whether they persist or are cleared, whether a page must be open, or what format is returned. This is a significant gap for an agent to safely call the tool.

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 sentence with no superfluous words; it is perfectly concise and front-loaded. Every word earns its place.

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?

This is a highly minimal description for a simple tool, but it lacks essential contextual information. With no output schema, an agent cannot know what 'errors' are (console errors? network errors?) or what a successful response looks like. It does not explain the relationship to 'browser_clear_errors', nor mention whether errors are scoped to the current page or session. This is a meaningful gap for correct invocation.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description need not add any parameter semantics. Per the rubric, the baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and no additional meaning is required.

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 specific verb ('get') and a specific resource ('browser errors'), directly matching the tool name. It distinguishes from the sibling tools 'browser_clear_errors' (get vs clear) and 'api_errors' (browser vs api), making the intent unmistakable.

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 is a bare functional statement with no guidance on when to use it vs. alternatives like 'browser_clear_errors' or 'api_errors'. It does not indicate typical usage scenarios (e.g., after an automation flow) or any preconditions.

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