Open Chrome tab

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does mention allowed URL schemes (http, https, file, about:blank), which is useful, but it omits critical behavioral details: whether this opens a new tab or reuses an existing one, whether the tab becomes active (the 'active' parameter), what happens on invalid URLs, and whether it waits for page load. The lack of side-effect disclosure is a significant gap.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It immediately states the action and supported URL types, earning its place with zero wasted words.

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 minimal schema (2 params, no output schema) and lack of annotations, the description should provide enough context for correct invocation. It fails to mention the 'active' parameter's effect and does not clarify how this differs from 'browser_navigate', which is a critical distinction for an agent deciding between tools. The description is too sparse to be considered 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning to the 'url' parameter by enumerating supported schemes (http, https, file, about:blank), which is not fully captured by the schema's 'format: uri' constraint. However, it says nothing about the 'active' parameter (boolean, default true), leaving its purpose unexplained.

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 function: 'Open an HTTP, HTTPS, file, or about:blank URL in Chrome.' It uses a specific verb ('open') and resource ('URL in Chrome'), making the purpose clear. However, it does not distinguish this from the sibling tool 'browser_navigate', which also likely opens URLs, so it lacks 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 like browser_navigate, browser_activate_tab, or browser_list_tabs. It does not mention scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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