touch-browser

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions opening into a 'new research tab' and overriding order, but lacks details on permissions, side effects (e.g., if it modifies data), error handling, or response format. For a tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, this leaves significant behavioral 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 a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose and usage context without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the main action and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on parameters, behavioral traits, return values, and sibling differentiation, making it inadequate for reliable agent use without additional context.

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 implies 'rank' is used to override order, but doesn't explain 'sessionId' or 'tabId' parameters. With 3 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description adds minimal semantic value beyond hinting at 'rank' usage, failing to adequately cover parameter meanings.

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 ('Open one structured search result') and resource ('into a new research tab'), distinguishing it from generic 'open' operations by specifying it's for search results. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling 'tb_search_open_top' which likely opens top results, leaving some ambiguity about sibling relationships.

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 some context with 'when you must override the recommended order after tb_search,' indicating usage after a search operation and for overriding order. However, it doesn't specify when to use this versus 'tb_search_open_top' or other tab-related tools, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions beyond the implied sequence.

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