open_new_tab

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does this well. It explains exactly-once creation, operation_id reconciliation after lost ACKs, the single-total-deadline guarantee, and the precise status/retry semantics before and after dispatch. This is unusually transparent for a tool description.

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 dense and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the most important semantic guarantees. While long, each sentence adds information; there is no filler. The repeated status tokens are slightly redundant but serve to make the retry contract explicit.

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 complex exactly-once and retry semantics, the description is nearly complete and covers the key edge cases an agent would worry about. It is missing explanations for several parameters, but an output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required here.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It meaningfully elaborates only the active parameter (foreground vs background). The url, timeout, owner_id, and session_id parameters are not explained, and the description references an operation_id that does not appear in the input schema at all, which may confuse an agent.

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 clearly identifies a specific operation: opening one real-browser tab, with a background-by-default behavior and exactly-once creation semantics. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like open_url, but the verb-plus-resource statement is otherwise precise and unambiguous.

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 practical usage guidance: use active=true only when foreground work is genuinely required, and avoid URL-based guesses or unmarked create retries. It lacks an explicit comparison to alternative sibling tools, so it does not fully close the selection question, but the guidance given is concrete and operational.

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