open_safari_tab

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

No annotations are present, and the description only covers the basic action. It does not disclose whether Safari is focused, if it launches Safari when closed, or error conditions beyond a generic 'error message'. This is insufficient for full behavioral transparency.

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 extremely concise with a single core sentence and minimal structure (Args/Returns). It is well front-loaded and contains no extraneous information.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter), the description covers basic input/output. However, it lacks behavioral context like prerequisites (e.g., Safari must be running) and detailed error handling, which limits completeness for an autonomous agent.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden. While it adds that 'url' is optional and expects a URL, it does not specify accepted URL formats, provide examples, or clarify constraints, leaving ambiguity.

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 (open a new tab), the application (Safari), and the optional nature of the URL. It is specific enough to distinguish from siblings like open_safari_window (window vs. tab) and close_safari_tab (opposite action).

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 for opening a tab, but it does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives such as navigate_safari or switch_safari_tab. No exclusions or when-not-to-use context is provided, so guidance is minimal.

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