open_in_browser

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the dual mode (open vs. return), URL auto-detection from config files, and default behaviors, but omits side effects (e.g., launching a browser), permissions, or error handling when detection fails.

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?

Three efficient sentences front-load the main action, detection mechanism, and secondary mode. No filler, though the last sentence could be slightly tighter.

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 3-param tool with 100% schema coverage and no annotations, the description is adequate but misses behavioral details (browser launch side effects, detection failure handling) and lacks output-format info even though no output schema exists. It is minimally viable.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description restates the auto-detection and explicit-URL behavior but adds no syntax or format details beyond the schema, aligning with the baseline 3.

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 states a specific verb (open) and resource (project URL in default browser), plus a secondary mode (return URL only). It does not differentiate itself from siblings like wait_for_browser_feedback or request_annotation, but the verb+resource is clear.

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?

Implicit usage: use when you need to preview a local project or detect its URL. No explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives or exclusion conditions, and no mention of siblings, leaving context to inference.

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