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. It mentions the tool refreshes a tab, implying a read-only or update operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires specific permissions, if it's idempotent, what happens on failure, or any rate limits. The description is minimal and lacks critical operational details.

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 core action and context. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff, 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 no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on parameters, behavior, return values, or error handling. For a tool with two parameters and no structured support, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to use it correctly.

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 doesn't explain the parameters 'sessionId' or 'tabId' at all—no mention of what they represent, how to obtain them, or their roles in the refresh process. The description adds no semantic value beyond the bare schema, failing to address the coverage gap.

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 ('Refresh') and target ('current headless research tab'), with context about when to use it ('after query or filter changes'). It doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like 'tb_tab_open' or 'tb_tab_select', but the specific context helps differentiate it as a refresh operation rather than navigation or creation.

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 context ('after query or filter changes'), suggesting it should be used post-modification to update the tab. However, it doesn't provide explicit alternatives (e.g., vs. 'tb_tab_open' for new tabs) or exclusions, leaving some ambiguity about when exactly to choose this tool over others.

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