browser_open

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only states 'Open URL in browser' without mentioning side effects like tab behavior, waiting, or session isolation. The session parameter exists but is not explained, leaving critical behavior undisclosed.

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 short sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately front-loaded and concise, though it could be more informative without being verbose.

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 presence of a session parameter for isolation and many sibling tools that may overlap, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what session isolation entails or when to choose this over browser_navigate. The lack of an output schema also means return behavior is unexplained, making this insufficiently complete for a simple 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 description coverage is 100%, so both 'url' and 'session' are documented in the schema itself. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate given the high coverage.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Open URL in browser') which clearly indicates the action. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like browser_navigate or browser_get, which might also open URLs. Thus it is clear in isolation but lacks differentiation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as browser_navigate or browser_get. The description does not mention any specific scenarios, prerequisites, or distinctions, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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