jev_open

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true), the description adds meaningful behavior: 'The session stays alive until closed or idle expiry' and 'A headed session can be operated by the user.' It also clarifies it performs no inference, which is a key behavioral trait. No contradictions with annotations.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then usage and behavior. No filler; every sentence adds value.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and session lifecycle. It mentions idle expiry and user interaction, which are critical for correct invocation. Nothing essential is missing.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It indirectly explains url by describing use cases involving a page, and explicitly explains headed: 'A headed session can be operated by the user.' While it doesn't detail url format (already provided by schema's uri format), it adds useful context for both parameters.

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 action: 'Open an isolated browser session without inference,' with explicit use cases ('for authentication or to inspect the initial page'). It distinguishes from siblings by highlighting 'without inference,' which contrasts with likely inference-based tools like jev_inspect or jev_explore.

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?

It explicitly says when to use it: 'for authentication or to inspect the initial page before delegating a goal,' and implicitly excludes inference tasks via 'without inference.' However, it does not name sibling alternatives directly, leaving some inference about which tools to use instead.

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