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 states the action ('Clear') but doesn't explain what 'clear' entails (e.g., deletion, reset, or removal), potential side effects, permissions required, or error conditions. This is inadequate for a tool that likely involves data mutation.

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 directly states the tool's function. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, with no wasted words, 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 the complexity of a tool that clears secrets (likely a mutation), no annotations, no output schema, and low parameter coverage, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavior, outcomes, error handling, and how parameters work, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to operate safely.

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 for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'sessionId' and 'targetRef' implicitly through 'session' and 'one stored daemon secret,' but doesn't clarify their roles, formats, or how they interact (e.g., if 'targetRef' is optional for clearing all secrets). This adds minimal value beyond 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 action ('Clear') and resource ('stored daemon secret' or 'all secrets for a session'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes between clearing one secret vs. all secrets, which adds specificity. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'tb_secret_store' or 'tb_type_secret', 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions clearing 'one stored daemon secret or all secrets,' but it doesn't specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. Without annotations or context, this leaves the agent with minimal usage direction.

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