touch-browser

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'headlessly' and session/tab options, but lacks critical behavioral details: what 'budget' controls (time, resources?), what 'sourceRisk' or 'sourceLabel' mean, how 'verifierCommand' works, or what happens on failure. For a tool with 9 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and key operational modes, while the second adds usage guidance. There's minimal waste, though it could be slightly more structured for clarity.

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 high complexity (9 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how errors are handled, or the semantics of most parameters. For a tool that likely involves web interactions and multiple configuration options, this leaves too much undefined for reliable agent use.

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 vaguely references 'direct URLs' (mapping to 'target') and session/tab context (hinting at 'sessionId'/'tabId'), but provides no meaning for 6 other parameters like 'browser', 'budget', 'sourceRisk', 'sourceLabel', 'verifierCommand', or 'allowDomains'. This fails to add sufficient value beyond the bare 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 ('Open') and resource ('public web document or official reference page'), specifying it operates 'headlessly' and can be 'statelessly or inside a daemon session/tab'. It distinguishes from siblings like tb_search_open_result or tb_search_open_top by focusing on direct URLs after narrowing scope, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 some context with 'Use this for direct URLs after narrowing scope', implying it's for known URLs rather than search results. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the many sibling tools (e.g., tb_search for discovery, tb_tab_open for tab management), leaving usage somewhat implied.

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