hands_perceive

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered externally. The description adds two useful facts beyond that: the return is a numbered element map, and a mock/fake web can be installed via 'pages'. It stops short of describing the map's structure, how elements are numbered, or what openWorld access implies in practice.

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?

A single compact sentence with the action and return value front-loaded and no filler. The parenthetical about 'pages' is slightly awkward but does real work.

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 an open-world browser tool with a nested-object parameter, no output schema, and zero schema descriptions, the definition is too thin. It never explains the 'pages' object shape or the element map format an agent must consume to chain into hands_act.

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 carries the full burden. It hints at both parameters ('URL' and 'a fake web via pages'), but 'pages' is a free-form nested object whose shape is never explained, leaving an agent unable to construct a valid value.

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-plus-resource: opens a URL and returns a numbered element map. That clearly separates it from hands_act/hands_run/hands_trail as the perception step, though the description never names those siblings explicitly.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance, and no reference to the sibling tools that would tell an agent whether to perceive first or act. The workflow role (perceive before acting) must be inferred from the name alone.

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