touch-browser

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'search engine selection is automatic' and that results are structured for follow-up, but doesn't cover important behavioral aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or what 'budget' parameter controls. For a web search tool with 4 parameters, this leaves significant gaps.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences that each serve clear purposes: the first states the core function, the second provides usage guidance. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and efficiently structured without wasted words.

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?

For a web search tool with 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how results are structured, what the parameters mean, or important behavioral constraints. While it provides basic purpose and some usage guidance, it leaves too many gaps for effective tool selection and invocation.

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 4 parameters, the description provides no information about any parameters. It doesn't explain what 'sessionId', 'tabId', 'query', or 'budget' mean or how they should be used. The description mentions 'query' implicitly through the search function but provides no semantic details about any parameters.

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 searches the web ('Search the public docs/research web headlessly') and structures results for follow-up browsing. It distinguishes from siblings like tb_search_open_top by mentioning that tool for subsequent actions, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other search-related tools like tb_search_open_result.

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 clear context for when to use this tool (for initial web searching) and explicitly mentions when to use tb_search_open_top for follow-up actions ('follow tb_search_open_top before read-view or extract'). However, it doesn't specify when NOT to use this tool or mention alternatives like tb_search_open_result.

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