Auto-Browser

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. It mentions the handoff request but fails to explain critical mechanics: whether the AI session blocks or continues, how control returns to the AI, timeout behavior, or what the human experiences. 'Ask for' implies a request mechanism but doesn't clarify if it's synchronous or asynchronous.

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 consists of a single, efficient sentence with no redundant words or filler. It is appropriately front-loaded with the core action and earns its place by concisely stating the tool's primary function.

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 complexity of human handoff operations, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and lack of annotations, the description is inadequate. It omits expected details about the handoff lifecycle, the reason parameter's purpose, and session management implications that would be necessary for safe and effective invocation.

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%, and the description completely fails to compensate by explaining either parameter. It does not mention that session_id identifies the target browser session, nor does it explain that reason provides context for the human operator. With zero coverage and no descriptive help, this is a significant gap.

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 ('Ask for') and resource ('human to take over the shared browser desktop'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like browser.execute_action or browser.screenshot. However, 'take over' is slightly ambiguous regarding whether the human gains interactive control or merely views the session.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., an active session) or when NOT to use it (e.g., during critical automated workflows). While the function is unique among siblings, the lack of explicit context lowers the score.

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