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 describes the action (opening search results into new tabs) and sequencing, but doesn't address important behavioral aspects like whether this requires specific permissions, what happens if the session/tab doesn't exist, error conditions, or what 'top recommended' means algorithmically. The description provides basic operational context but lacks comprehensive behavioral 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 extremely concise and well-structured in a single sentence that efficiently communicates the core purpose and usage guidelines. Every word serves a clear purpose with zero redundancy or 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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description provides excellent workflow context but leaves significant gaps. The sequencing guidance is valuable, but the complete lack of parameter explanation and minimal behavioral disclosure means the agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without additional context or trial-and-error.

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 3 parameters (sessionId, tabId, limit), the description provides no information about what these parameters mean or how they should be used. The description doesn't mention any parameters at all, leaving the agent with no semantic understanding beyond the bare parameter names in the schema.

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 specific action ('Open the top recommended search results into new research tabs'), identifies the resource ('search results'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying it should be used after tb_search and before tb_extract/tb_read_view. This provides precise differentiation from tools like tb_open, tb_search_open_result, and tb_tab_open.

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 explicit usage guidance with clear sequencing: 'Prefer this immediately after tb_search, then inspect tabs with tb_read_view before tb_extract.' This tells the agent exactly when to use this tool versus alternatives and establishes a workflow context that distinguishes it from other tab/research operations.

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