openBrowser

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Window persists for further interactions' is a useful behavioral detail beyond the tool's name, indicating the window remains available. However, it doesn't disclose potential side effects, whether it reuses an existing window, or any blocking behavior, leaving some ambiguity.

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 short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action and adds a key persistence detail without redundancy.

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 a clear schema and a simple behavior, the description is mostly adequate. It explains the core action and a critical behavioral trait (persistence) but omits clarification about whether a new window is always created and how that relates to existing tabs, which is relevant given sibling tools. Still, given the simplicity, it's nearly complete.

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?

The input schema covers the 'url' parameter with a description ('URL to navigate to'), giving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional semantics about URL format or restrictions, so it sticks to the baseline for well-schemaed parameters.

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 browser and navigate to URL') and identifies the resource. The mention that the window persists adds a distinguishing behavioral trait, but it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like navigateTo, so it lacks direct sibling differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't state prerequisites, exclusions, or recommended contexts. The persistence note is implied but not framed as a decision criterion.

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