terminal_browse

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully notes 'without saving files' and the fallback to fetch+html-to-text, which explains error handling. However, it does not disclose return format, error behavior, or side effects beyond these points.

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 sentences: the first states the core purpose and key constraint, the second adds browser support/fallback. No wasted words; it's appropriately front-loaded.

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 moderately complex schema (5 params, enums, defaults) and no output schema, the description provides a solid high-level overview. It could mention output formats or the extractLinks feature, but the schema covers those, so the description is adequate for informing tool selection.

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 schema provides 100% coverage of all five parameters with clear descriptions, so the description adds no additional parameter-level detail. Baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema handles the semantics effectively.

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: browsing websites and displaying content directly in terminal, with a specific constraint (no file saving) and mention of multiple browser support. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (check_browsers, extract_links) by focusing on actual browsing/display.

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 implies the primary use case (browsing a URL) but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use it. It offers no guidance on selecting between this and check_browsers/extract_links, though the browser support detail hints at a selection mechanism.

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