Open the trajectory viewer

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it opens a local browser (side effect), verifies every artifact/hash/reference, and leaves human review pending. This contextual behavior goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 core action and scope, followed by a state note. No wasted words; the description is efficient and well-structured.

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, verification scope, side effect (browser open), and pending human review. It does not explain failure behavior or return value, but these are minor given the simplicity and annotations.

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 only parameter 'directory' is fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The description does not add extra parameter details beyond referring to the package directory. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter meaning.

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 ('verify') and resource ('delivered relay evidence package') followed by an action ('open its trajectory viewer'). It clearly identifies what the tool does, and the trajectory viewer is distinct from sibling console tools, though it doesn't name an alternative explicitly.

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 implies usage: when a relay evidence package has been delivered and needs verification and viewing. It gives clear context ('delivered relay evidence package') but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like relay_console_open. This is adequate without exclusions.

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