get_page_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does so thoroughly. It declares the operation READ-ONLY, lists what it does not do (inspect content, find elements, wait, assert), and explains the no-session fallback: returns {"running": False} instead of attempting page access. It also states that it does not navigate, reload, click, type, or modify the page.

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 well-structured with a one-line summary, a return-value breakdown, tool-selection bullets, and a final side-effect warning. Although slightly long, every section earns its place and the most important usage guidance is front-loaded.

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 zero-parameter tool, the description is complete: it specifies returned fields, session-inactive behavior, read-only guarantees, and sibling tool alternatives. The output schema exists, but the description's return section still adds useful context beyond a bare schema.

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 and an empty input schema, so parameter documentation is unnecessary. The baseline of 4 applies because there is no parameter meaning to add; the description instead focuses usefully on return value semantics.

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 opens with a precise verb and resource: 'Get current browser session and page metadata.' It also positions the tool as the primary way to determine where the browser currently is after navigation, clicks, redirects, reloads, or tab switches, which clearly separates it from content- and element-focused 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 'Tool selection' section explicitly maps needs to tools: URL/title/origin/user-agent -> get_page_info; visible text/HTML -> get_content; matching elements -> find_elements; state checks -> check_condition; waits -> wait_for; assertions -> assert_condition. This gives an agent explicit routing guidance with no ambiguity.

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