Open ProBo browser

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the description's job is lighter. It still adds real behavioral context by disclosing graceful degradation: clients without MCP Apps support receive the same overview as get_overview. No auth, rate-limit, or side-effect detail beyond that.

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, zero filler, with the primary action front-loaded and the fallback behavior appended. Every clause earns its place.

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 not be described, and annotations carry the safety profile. The description covers what opens and the fallback path; the only mild gap is that it does not clarify what the agent should do differently after opening the browser versus calling the underlying list tools.

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% and the single 'view' parameter already has an enum plus a description, so the baseline is 3. The description's enumeration of tabs (messages, news, documents, info pages) loosely mirrors the enum values but adds no naming, default, or interaction detail beyond the schema.

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 and resource ('Open an interactive ProBo browser in the chat') and enumerates the content domains it surfaces (messages, news, documents, info pages), which maps directly onto the sibling tools for those resources. It also names the sibling it degrades to, so an agent can distinguish it from get_overview.

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 second sentence implies a routing rule — clients lacking MCP Apps support effectively get get_overview — but never states explicitly when an agent should prefer this interactive browser over list_messages, get_overview, or the other listing siblings. Usage is implied rather than declared, and no exclusions are given.

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