open

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful side effects: enabling a feedback overlay, launching the browser when absent, and restoring saved drafts/history. However, it leaves unclear whether existing state is overwritten, whether this is destructive, and what the recovery actually entails.

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?

Three short sentences, each adding a distinct fact: opening the URL, overlay behavior, and recovery. The main action is front-loaded, though the final sentence is vague and could be more precise without losing conciseness.

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 low-complexity tool this describes the core behavior, but it omits workflow context (relationship to done/screenshot), the strategy parameter in the prose, and any return/error behavior. With no output schema or annotations, those omissions are noticeable but not fatal.

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 only 50%; the strategy parameter is documented in the schema but the tool description adds nothing about it. The description's mention of 'URL' merely restates the required parameter and does not enrich the uri format already defined in 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 states a specific action ('open URL in a dedicated browser') and adds distinguishing details: it turns on a feedback overlay, launches the browser if missing, and recovers saved drafts/history. This separates it from siblings like screenshot or close, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings such as screenshot or wait. The only conditional statement, 'if no browser, launch it', is a behavioral detail rather than usage guidance, and no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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