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 the action 'extract' but doesn't describe what this entails operationally - whether it modifies content, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what the output looks like. The mention of 'public docs or reference pages' hints at source constraints but lacks detail on behavioral implications.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place - the first states the core purpose, the second provides critical usage context. No wasted words, well-structured with front-loaded essential information.

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 complex tool with 11 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It explains what and when but lacks crucial details about how the extraction works, what parameters control, and what results to expect, leaving significant gaps for agent understanding.

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 and 11 parameters (only 1 required), the description provides no information about any parameters. It doesn't explain what 'target', 'claims', 'browser', 'budget', 'mainOnly', 'verifierCommand', 'sourceRisk', 'sourceLabel', 'allowDomains', 'sessionId', or 'tabId' mean or how they affect the extraction process.

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 'extract' and the resource 'evidence-supported and insufficient-evidence claims', specifying what the tool does. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning 'current target or daemon tab' context, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all similar tools like tb_read_view beyond usage sequence.

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 explicit context for when to use: 'after tb_read_view confirms the tab scope on public docs or reference pages'. This gives clear prerequisites and sequence guidance. However, it doesn't mention when NOT to use or alternatives among siblings like tb_search for evidence gathering.

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