browser_extract_site_map

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the output format (text/href pairs) and scope (current system navigation), which is useful. However, it doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, whether it requires a page to be open, or how it handles dynamic content.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The core action is front-loaded, and the output format is stated immediately. Every sentence 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?

For a parameterless tool with no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and output format. However, it lacks context on prerequisites (e.g., must have a page open), whether it works on the current page or entire system, and how it relates to sibling tools like browser_elements. The description is adequate but not 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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides no parameter semantics. The description adds value by explaining the output format (text/href pairs) and purpose, which is sufficient for a parameterless tool. Baseline 4 for 0 params 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 extracts navigation menu/link structure and returns text/href pairs, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like browser_text and browser_elements by focusing on site map building, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 building a site map or feature map, which gives context but no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives. It doesn't state when not to use it or mention alternatives like browser_elements or browser_text for link extraction.

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