safari_new_tab

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the background-tab behavior, the return structure, and the receipt's persistence across reconnects and restarts. It does not mention potential failure modes or waiting behavior, but the key behavioral traits are covered.

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 two sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the core action and then adds critical receipt-handling instructions. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential details: return value, receipt usage, and background behavior. It could mention whether it waits for page load, but that is a minor gap given the simplicity and sibling tool availability.

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 the url parameter is already described. The description only reiterates that the URL is optional, adding no new semantic value beyond the schema.

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 tool's action: opening a new background tab, optionally with a URL. It specifies the behavior 'never steals focus' and distinguishes it from siblings that operate on existing tabs. The verb, resource, and scope are unambiguous.

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?

It provides explicit guidance on using the receipt for subsequent calls and notes that this makes safari_list_tabs and safari_switch_tab unnecessary. However, it does not explicitly compare with other tab-related tools like safari_navigate or safari_wait_for_new_tab, leaving some inference required.

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