open_manual_browser

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 that the window is persistent and pinned, which goes beyond a bare 'open browser', but it does not mention side effects, permission requirements, or what the return value is. Minimal but some behavioral context is added.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. Every word earns its place, with no filler or repetition.

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?

The tool is simple (2 parameters, no output schema), and the description gives a basic idea, but it leaves ambiguity about behavior after invocation—whether it blocks, whether it returns a handle, or how it integrates with profile actions. For an AI agent, more detail on the lifecycle of the browser window would be helpful.

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 100% (both url and profile_id are described). The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but since the schema fully explains each parameter, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Open and pin a persistent browser window for manual profile actions' uses specific verbs (open, pin) and identifies the resource (persistent browser window) plus the scope (manual profile actions). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle automated actions like login or read_feed.

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 phrase 'for manual profile actions' gives implied context that this tool is for human intervention, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or provide exclusions. There is no mention of 'use this when' or 'instead of X'.

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