abrir_no_navegador

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true; the description adds the allowed input domain and points to result links. It does not disclose what happens on invalid input, which browser is used, or whether the call blocks, so it is adequate but not rich.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the verb and accepted resources, then the usage rule. No redundant or filler content.

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 annotations covering safety, the description supplies purpose, accepted input domain, and usage context. It omits error behavior, but that is a minor gap for a simple browser-opening action.

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 0% and the only parameter `url` is undocumented in the schema. The description compensates by specifying which URL types are accepted (SUAP link, file:// PDF, DOI) and where to source them, though it doesn't give exact syntax for a DOI.

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?

States a specific verb ('Abre') and resource ('no navegador') and enumerates accepted URL types (SUAP link, file:// PDF, DOI). The scope 'Só esses' clearly bounds the tool, letting an agent distinguish it from sibling actions like salvar_no_suap.

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?

Explicit when: 'quando o docente pedir para ver algo' and source: 'use os links que vieram nos resultados (`links`)'. It also gives a when-not by restricting to only those URL types, but names no alternative sibling tool.

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