spaces

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so richly: user focus pauses control, handoff alone brings the window forward, finish releases control while keeping evidence tabs, recovered tasks remain paused, and claim with userConfirmed:true can connect a new agent only after explicit user instruction. These lifecycle safety and control behaviors are exactly what an agent needs to avoid misuse. The only gap is minor, such as no error or permission model, but the disclosure is strong overall.

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 dense paragraph but is front-loaded with the core concept and contains little filler; most sentences convey a distinct lifecycle rule. It could be more scannable with action-oriented grouping, yet given the complexity of a 17-action tool it remains appropriately sized and earns most of its words.

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 complex multi-action tool with 15 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the critical lifecycle and routing behavior well, including reconnect recovery and paused-task handling. It does not explain all enum actions or return expectations, but it provides enough context for an agent to call the tool safely in common scenarios. The missing action-level detail keeps it from a 5.

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 moderate at 67%, so the schema already documents many parameters. The description adds meaning for tabId usage, userConfirmed claim behavior, and some action routing, but it does not explain many parameters such as leaseMs, after, label, notifications, reportIntervalMs, or spaceId. It adds partial value over the schema but does not fully compensate for the remaining coverage gaps.

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 the resource clearly as a 'BeatBrowser-owned background task window' and explains core actions like open, handoff, resume, finish, and claim. It distinguishes the tool from sibling browser actions by framing it as a space/task-window controller rather than a page interaction tool. However, it does not explicitly define the tool as a unified space-management command surface, leaving some inference to the agent.

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 gives clear operational context: open creates a minimized Chrome window, pass tabId on browser calls, handoff brings the window forward, resume requires explicit user instruction, and list spaces restores routing after reconnect. These are useful when-to-use signals for several actions. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of the top score.

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