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 mentions inspecting 'mainContentQuality and mainContentReason' and hints at a 'scope checking' process, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what 'daemon tab' entails. For a tool with 9 parameters and no annotations, this is insufficient to fully understand its behavior and constraints.

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 concise and front-loaded, with two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and a key usage note. There's no unnecessary fluff, and each sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more structured to separate purpose from guidelines.

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 (9 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameter meanings, behavioral traits, and return values, making it inadequate for an agent to fully understand how to invoke the tool correctly. The mention of 'mainContentQuality and mainContentReason' adds some context but doesn't cover the gaps.

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 description provides no information about the 9 parameters, and schema description coverage is 0%, meaning parameters like 'target', 'browser', 'budget', and others are undocumented. While the description mentions 'target or daemon tab' and 'scope checking,' it doesn't explain how these relate to specific parameters, failing to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 tool's purpose: 'Return a readable Markdown view of a target or daemon tab for scope checking on public docs and reference pages.' It specifies the verb ('Return'), resource ('Markdown view'), and context ('scope checking on public docs and reference pages'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'tb_extract' or 'tb_search', which might have overlapping functionality, keeping it from 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?

The description implies usage for 'scope checking on public docs and reference pages' and mentions inspecting 'mainContentQuality and mainContentReason before extracting claims,' which suggests a specific workflow. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'tb_extract' or 'tb_search_open_result,' nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites, making the guidance somewhat vague.

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