browser_new_tab

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses a non-obvious behavior — bare image URLs open in a local viewer page unless raw=True — but omits whether the new tab becomes focused/active and whether a tab identifier is returned.

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?

Front-loads the purpose in one line, then documents the two parameters compactly. The Args block is standard and wastes little, though the url default restates the schema default.

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?

Adequate but not complete for a tab-creation tool with no annotations and no output schema: focus behavior, return value (e.g. tab id), and relationship to browser_navigate/browser_switch_tab are unaddressed.

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, and it does: it explains url's default (blank page) and gives real semantics for raw (bare image URLs open in a local viewer unless raw=True). Only minor gaps, like URL format expectations, remain.

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+resource ('Open a new browser tab'), which is clear on its own. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings like browser_navigate (navigate current tab) or browser_duplicate_tab, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is given. With ~90 sibling tools including browser_navigate, browser_duplicate_tab, and browser_tabs, the description never says when a new tab is preferable to navigating or duplicating, nor any prerequisites.

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