show

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful side effects: a new tab is created, it is visible, and it is left open rather than closed. That persistence detail is exactly the kind of behavior an agent cannot infer from the schema. It omits prerequisites such as whether the browser must already be running (browser_start/browser_status siblings) and any auth or rate considerations.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the usage constraint; nothing is redundant. The parenthetical 'look what I found' is informal flavor, but it does reinforce intent, so it costs little.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and for a one-parameter side-effect tool the description covers what happens, how visible it is, and when to invoke it. The remaining gap is lifecycle context — what happens if no browser session is active — which the browser_start/browser_status siblings imply is relevant.

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?

There is a single required 'url' parameter with 0% schema description coverage, and the description only alludes to it as 'a page' — no format, absolute-vs-relative, or scheme guidance. The parameter's intent is self-evident, so the gap is small, but the description adds nothing beyond the schema field name.

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 gives a concrete verb and target: open a page in a new visible tab of the ochi browser. That is far more specific than the bare name 'show' and clarifies the tool is user-facing rather than a silent fetch. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with siblings like fetch, look, or snapshot, so the agent must infer the distinction from 'visible tab'.

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?

'Use sparingly: only when they'd want to see it themselves' is an explicit use condition plus a restraint cue, which is stronger than most definitions. It stops short of naming a concrete alternative (e.g., use fetch for silent retrieval), so a 5 is not warranted.

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