touch-browser

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It implies a mutation ('Set') but doesn't disclose effects (e.g., whether changes are persistent, require specific permissions, or affect other sessions). No information on rate limits, errors, or response format is included, which is inadequate for a tool that modifies state.

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, direct sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action and target efficiently, making it easy to parse quickly without unnecessary elaboration.

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 tool's complexity (mutating session/tab state), lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover parameter meanings, behavioral implications, or expected outcomes, leaving critical gaps for safe and correct usage 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate but fails to do so. It mentions 'session/tab' and 'profile' generically but doesn't explain what 'sessionId', 'tabId', or 'profile' represent, their formats, or valid values. This leaves all three parameters semantically unclear beyond their names.

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 ('Set') and the target ('active policy profile for a daemon session/tab'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'tb_profile' (likely for reading) by specifying a write operation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other session/tab tools (e.g., 'tb_session_create'), which prevents a perfect 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing session/tab), exclusions, or related tools like 'tb_policy' or 'tb_profile', leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.

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