URL をブラウザで開く

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It states the core action—opening the URL in the TV browser—but does not disclose side effects, prerequisites, success/error behavior, or whether the browser is launched vs. navigated to. This is adequate but not rich.

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?

A single sentence that states the action without filler. The key location ('TV のブラウザ') and action are front-loaded, and no sentence is wasted.

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?

This is a simple two-parameter action with no nested objects and no output schema; the description plus complete schema is sufficient for a correct call. It lacks only optional behavioral detail such as return/error semantics, which is not critical for this simple action.

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 device are already documented with format and default-device resolution details. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('開く' - open), a concrete resource (URL), and a scoped target (TV's browser), which clearly sets it apart from sibling tools like launch_app or send_key. It is not a tautology: it adds the TV context beyond the title.

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 makes the intended use clear: when the task is to open a URL in the TV's browser. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is specific enough that an agent can reliably route to this tool.

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