browser_resize

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

Annotations already signal that this is a mutating operation (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false). The description adds no behavioral context beyond that, such as how resizing affects the viewport, whether values are in pixels, or how it affects subsequent browser interactions.

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, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It is concise and easy to parse, though it earns its place mainly by restating the tool's name.

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 that changes browser state and has no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits operational context such as whether this resizes the viewport or the outer window, any dimension limits, and how the resize affects subsequent browser actions. The schema covers parameters, but not the overall context.

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 fully describes both width and height with 100% coverage, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no extra meaning about units, constraints, or how width and height relate to each other.

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 and target ('Resize the browser window'), and the resizing action is unique among the sibling tools, so an agent can distinguish it from navigation, clicking, and tab management. However, it largely restates the tool name and gives no detail about the scope or effect of resizing.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use browser_resize versus alternatives, when not to use it, or how it relates to other browser-control tools. The description leaves all usage decisions to inference.

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