browser_open

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it discloses that the call blocks until the page loads and that the response is a compact outline rather than raw HTML or text. It omits failure/timeout behavior and the fact that navigation mutates browser/tab state, which would matter for sequencing.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the action, followed by the return contract and the follow-up instruction. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must describe the return value — and it does, specifying the outline format and ref syntax. Combined with the schema-documented `view` modes, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only error/timeout and state-mutation behavior are unaddressed.

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 100% — both `url` and the `view` enum (page/text/none) are already documented in the schema. The description corroborates the default outline mode but adds no syntax, format, or constraint details beyond what the schema states, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (go to a URL / search Google), the behavior (waits for load), and the exact return shape (compact outline with headings and interactive `[ref] role "name"` elements). It also routes the agent to the sibling that consumes the refs (browser_act), so the tool is distinguishable from the rest of the browser_* family.

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?

Gives clear context for both modes ('a URL (or search Google with plain words)') and explicitly says what to do with the output ('Use the refs with browser_act'). It stops short of stating when NOT to use this tool (e.g., browser_read for existing pages, browser_screenshot for visual capture), so no explicit alternative/exclusion guidance.

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