browse_web

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, non-destructive and openWorldHint=false; the description reinforces this by explaining that URL names resolve through the host's own simulated DNS server, which clarifies why the operation is not truly open-world. It also surfaces the status vocabulary (ok, timeout, host_not_found) and the default/max timeout, adding context beyond the annotations.

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 dense sentence with the action and return payload front-loaded; nothing is wasted, though it is somewhat long and the DNS clause could be trimmed.

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?

An output schema exists so return-value explanation is largely redundant, yet the description still names the key response fields and error statuses, which is helpful. For a read-only browser-simulation tool the definition is essentially complete.

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%, so all three params (url, device, timeout_secs) are already documented. The description adds only marginal meaning (DNS resolution, status names) and no param syntax beyond what the schema states, 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?

States a specific verb (open), resource (URL in a device's Web Browser) and explicitly enumerates the return payload (status, server address, HTML, text). This clearly separates it from siblings like screenshot, run_host_command, or set_web_page.

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?

Usage is implied by the 'like typing it and pressing Go' framing and the DNS resolution note, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not, and no named alternatives among siblings (e.g. run_host_command or screenshot for other page inspection paths).

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