jevbrow_open

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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only, not idempotent, not destructive, and touches the outside world. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond annotations: the tab opens in the background, is Jev-owned, and is in the local browser.

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 with no filler or redundancy. Every word contributes meaning, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the description covers the essential context: what to open, where, and how. Minor omissions like loading behavior are acceptable for such a simple action.

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 0%, so the description carries the parameter documentation burden. It adds the http(s) scheme constraint and clarifies the parameter is a URL, though the parameter name already conveys much of this. It does not discuss formatting, required prefixes, or edge cases.

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 a specific action (open), a resource (http(s) URL), and a precise location (Jev-owned background tab in the local browser). It is immediately distinguishable from the sibling tools like click, type, scroll, and close.

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 its use case: navigate to or open a URL in the browser. It does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives or mention any exclusions, but for a simple open action the context is fairly clear.

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