touch-browser

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a read operation ('return'), implying it's non-destructive, but doesn't cover aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what the output format might be. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that interacts with session data.

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, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'checkpoint guidance' entails, how the output is structured, or any prerequisites for use. For a tool that likely returns critical session state information, more context is needed to ensure proper agent usage.

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?

The description mentions 'session/tab' context, which aligns with the parameters 'sessionId' and 'tabId', but doesn't add meaning beyond what the schema names imply. With 0% schema description coverage, the description doesn't compensate by explaining what these IDs represent or their format, so it meets the baseline for minimal parameter context.

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 action ('return') and target ('current supervised checkpoint guidance for a daemon session/tab'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from siblings like 'tb_status' or 'tb_profile', which might also provide session-related information, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 versus alternatives. Given siblings like 'tb_status' (which might return general status) and 'tb_profile' (which might return profile data), there's no indication of when this specific checkpoint guidance is needed or what makes it distinct from other session tools.

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