browser_recall

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 discloses a key behavioral trait: it skips re-observation and returns a mapping plus stale-selector info. However, it doesn't disclose side effects (e.g., whether it mutates stored state, whether refs are registered globally, or whether it requires a prior browser_remember call). The description adds some behavioral context but leaves important gaps.

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, information-dense sentence that front-loads the core action and outcome. It earns its place by explaining the return value and the skipping behavior. Slightly more structure (e.g., separating the return description) could improve readability, but it's appropriately concise.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and return value. However, it lacks prerequisites (e.g., must call browser_remember first), error conditions (e.g., what if the name doesn't exist), and side-effect details. Given the tool's moderate complexity and zero annotations, 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the 'name' parameter beyond implying it is the saved map's name. With only one parameter, the burden is lower, but the description still doesn't explicitly state what 'name' refers to (e.g., the name used in browser_remember). This is a meaningful gap for an agent trying to call the tool correctly.

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 verb ('Load'), the resource ('saved page element map'), and the key behavior ('register fresh refs... skipping re-observation'). It also names its companion tool browser_remember, which helps distinguish it from siblings. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other browser tools like browser_observe or browser_elements, so it's clear but not fully differentiated.

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 when to use it: after browser_remember, when you want to reuse a saved element map without re-observing. It also implicitly contrasts with browser_observe (skipping re-observation). However, it doesn't state explicit when-not-to-use conditions or alternatives beyond the implicit reference to browser_remember.

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