openInBrowser

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

The description discloses writing to a temp file and opening the browser, which aligns with annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true). It adds useful detail beyond annotations, though it could mention environment dependencies (e.g., default browser availability).

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action, no unnecessary words. Every sentence provides value. Excellent conciseness.

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, but the description covers purpose, action, and use case. It could mention that it creates a temporary file and potential limitations (e.g., headless environments), but overall it is complete enough 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. The schema already explains 'html' and 'filename' sufficiently.

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 clearly states the action ('Write HTML to temp file and open in default browser') and the intended use case ('For visual reports and dashboards'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools, as none others open browser content.

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 context on when to use ('For visual reports and dashboards'), but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives. Given the absence of closely related siblings, this is adequate.

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