redirect_tracer

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden and does name the redirect mechanisms it follows and the return data. However, the claim that the result includes headers is at odds with the schema's includeHeaders default false, and it does not clarify whether tracing performs a live browser navigation that could affect the current session state.

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 filler. The core action is front-loaded, and each clause adds useful information: which redirect mechanisms are tracked and what the tool returns.

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?

The core behavior and return summary are present, but because there is no output schema and no annotations, important context is missing: whether the path is a list of hop objects, how headers depend on includeHeaders, and whether the trace mutates the current browser page. The schema defaults help, but they do not fully compensate for these gaps.

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 coverage is only 57%, yet the description adds no parameter-specific guidance for the undocumented url, maxRedirects, or includeHeaders fields. The mention of returned headers conflicts with the includeHeaders default, and the redirect-type details do not explain how the followJS and followMeta booleans affect the output.

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 action ('Trace the complete redirect chain'), the concrete resource (a URL), and the exact tracking scope (HTTP 301/302, JavaScript navigation, meta refresh). It also states the return value, which makes it easy to distinguish this tool from browser-navigation or network-capture siblings.

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 behavior implies the use case: analyze why a URL ends up where it does. However, the description never explicitly says when to choose this tool over alternatives such as replay_request or network_recorder, nor does it mention any exclusions or conditions.

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