wavexis_browser_version

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, indicating no destructive side effects. The description adds critical behavior beyond annotations: 'Side effects: Acquires (and may launch) a browser backend, then releases it.' This discloses a launch-and-release cycle that is not captured by annotations. It also specifies the return format as a JSON string with keys, which is helpful.

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 extremely concise: two short paragraphs and one line for returns. The first sentence immediately states the purpose, the second places it relative to an alternative, and the third lists side effects and return format. Every sentence adds unique value, and there is no redundant or wasteful text.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage alternative, side effects, and return format. An output schema is present, so no need to detail return values. Annotations cover safety. The description does not miss any essential contextual information for an agent to invoke this tool correctly.

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 input schema already provides descriptions for both parameters (backend with enum and default, session_id with nullability and behavior). The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. Since schema description coverage is effectively high (each parameter has a description), a baseline score of 3 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 'Query the active browser's version string via the selected backend.' This specifies a verb ('query') and a resource ('browser version string'). It also implicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool 'wavexis_backends' by mentioning that the latter lists backends without launching a browser.

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 explicitly tells when not to use this tool: 'Use wavexis_backends instead when you need a list of all installed backends without launching a browser.' It clearly indicates that this tool acquires (and may launch) a browser backend, which is a key context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool, though it is implied when you need the browser version.

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