ghost_tab_open

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It openly states the key side effect (never focuses the tab/window) and the return contract (id for sibling tools). However, it omits prerequisites, such as whether a browser must already be launched, error behavior, or permissions, which would be valuable for a tool of this type.

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 delivers the core behavior, the negative guarantee, and the output contract. Every clause earns its place; no redundant or filler wording exists.

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?

For a tool with two undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It explains the purpose and return value but leaves the 'browser' parameter undefined and does not clarify preconditions (e.g., an already launched browser) or what happens if the tab cannot be opened. This is a gap an agent must resolve before invoking the tool.

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 schema has 0% description coverage and the tool description does not explain either parameter. 'url' is implicitly the address to open, but 'browser' is entirely unexplained, and with 0 required parameters it is unclear what values are allowed or whether either parameter is optional. The description adds no semantic meaning beyond the parameter names.

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 precisely states the action ('Open a new background tab') and adds a critical constraint, 'never brings the tab or window to the front', which distinguishes it from navigation or foreground tab operations. It also names the resource (tab) and the output (the tab's id), making the purpose 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 makes the usage context clear: this is for creating a new tab that stays in the background, and the returned id is meant for other ghost_tab_* tools. It does not explicitly name when-not-to-use or alternatives like ghost_tab_navigate, but the context is specific enough that an agent can select this tool for background tab creation.

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