touch-browser

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions persistence and avoiding repeated acknowledgments, which implies state modification, but doesn't clarify what 'persist' means operationally, whether changes are reversible, what permissions are required, or what happens if the session ends. For a tool that appears to modify session state with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient behavioral context.

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, reasonably efficient sentence that gets straight to the point. While it could be more informative, there's no wasted verbiage or unnecessary elaboration. The structure is front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 tool with 2 required parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, what 'persist' means operationally, what happens on success/failure, or provide enough context about the parameters. Given the complexity implied by 'supervised approval risks' and the complete lack of structured documentation, the description should do much more.

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 for 2 required parameters, the description provides no information about what sessionId or ackRisks represent, their formats, or their relationships. The mention of 'ack flags' in the description hints at ackRisks parameter purpose but doesn't explain what constitutes a risk or how to format the array items. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 the tool 'persist supervised approval risks' which provides a verb+resource combination, but it's somewhat vague about what 'supervised approval risks' actually are. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning 'repeated ack flags are not required' which suggests some relationship to acknowledgment functionality, but doesn't clearly differentiate from tools like tb_session_create or tb_submit that might handle session-related operations.

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 mentions 'for the current daemon session' which provides some context about when to use it, but offers no guidance on when NOT to use this tool or what alternatives exist among the many sibling tools. There's no mention of prerequisites, dependencies, or comparison to similar tools like tb_session_create or tb_submit.

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