Observe Browser

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions launch/adopt and URL handling but lacks details on side effects (e.g., whether it opens a new window, modifies browser state), auth requirements, or blocking behavior. The phrase 'native UI' is vague.

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?

The description is a single sentence that conveys multiple aspects (launch/adopt, optional URL, return type). It is reasonably concise, though slightly long. No redundancy.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description should clarify the return format. It only says 'return a browser-window or browser-owned file-dialog observation,' which is too vague. Parameter explanations are missing, leaving the agent with insufficient context.

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. It only hints at 'targetUrl' ('optionally handle a target URL') but does not name or explain either parameter, and 'inlineImage' is entirely absent. This adds minimal value over the raw 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?

The description clearly states the verb ('launch or adopt'), resource ('Windows browser'), and the outcome ('return a browser-window or browser-owned file-dialog observation'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like browser_act and browser_stop by focusing on observation.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (siblings are browser_act, browser_status, browser_stop). There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or when not to use it.

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