open_org

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral transparency. It states the action but fails to disclose side effects (e.g., how it handles invalid URLs, required authentication state, or whether it navigates the browser). Lacks details on error handling or state changes.

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 that efficiently communicates the core action. However, it is too brief for a tool with no annotations, missing opportunities to add value without becoming verbose.

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 absence of annotations and minimal description, the tool lacks contextual completeness. It does not hint at return values (even though an output schema exists) or usage context, making it hard for an agent to decide when and how to invoke it.

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 0% for the only parameter 'org_url'. The description does not clarify what format or scope (e.g., full URL vs just domain) is expected. The parameter is declared as optional with no guidance, leaving ambiguity.

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 uses a specific verb ('Open') and resource ('Salesforce org URL') with a qualifier ('with the persistent browser profile'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'open_datacloud_area', which opens a different area.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., 'browser_auth_status', 'click'). It does not mention prerequisites like needing an active browser session or authentication.

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