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 the tool returns a policy profile, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'active' means in context. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely involves system-level data access.

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 resource. It wastes no words and directly communicates the core functionality without unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 of policy profiles, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what a 'policy profile' entails, the return format, or behavioral traits like side effects, making it incomplete for safe and effective tool invocation by an agent.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description adds no parameter information beyond what's implied by the tool name. It doesn't explain what 'sessionId' or 'tabId' represent, their formats, or how they relate to retrieving the policy profile, 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') and the resource ('active policy profile for a daemon session/tab'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'tb_policy' or 'tb_profile_set', but the verb 'Return' suggests a read operation versus 'Set' for writing, providing some implicit distinction.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage for retrieving policy profiles, but doesn't specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions compared to siblings like 'tb_policy' or 'tb_profile_set', leaving the agent to infer based on tool names alone.

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