touch-browser

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'policy evaluation' but doesn't explain what that entails (e.g., is it read-only, does it modify data, what permissions are needed, or what the output looks like). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with 7 parameters and no output schema.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the key action and target. There's no wasted verbiage, 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 the complexity (7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and many siblings), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the tool's behavior, parameter usage, or output, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use it effectively beyond a basic understanding of its purpose.

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 7 parameters (target, browser, sourceRisk, sourceLabel, allowDomains, sessionId, tabId), the description adds no meaning beyond the schema. It vaguely references 'target or daemon tab' but doesn't clarify how parameters like sourceRisk or allowDomains relate to the policy evaluation, failing to compensate for the 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 clearly states the action ('Return the policy evaluation') and target ('for a target or daemon tab on the public docs/research web surface'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its many siblings (like tb_checkpoint or tb_status), which could also involve evaluation or reporting functions.

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. With 25 sibling tools, including tb_checkpoint, tb_status, and others that might relate to policy or reporting, there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions for this specific tool.

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