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 discloses that storage is 'only in daemon memory' (implying ephemeral, not persistent) and for 'sensitive value', but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, security implications, or what happens on session closure. For a tool handling secrets with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 ('Store a sensitive value') and adds key constraints ('only in daemon memory', 'for a specific target ref'). There is no wasted verbiage, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 handling secrets, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage for 3 parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover error cases, return values, security warnings, or interaction with sibling tools, leaving significant gaps for safe and effective use.

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 mentions 'target ref' and 'value', but doesn't explain what sessionId, targetRef, or value represent (e.g., format, scope, examples). With 3 undocumented parameters, the description adds minimal semantic context beyond naming them.

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 verb 'store' and the resource 'sensitive value', specifying it's for a 'specific target ref' and 'only in daemon memory'. It distinguishes from siblings like tb_secret_clear (which clears secrets) and tb_type_secret (which might type secrets), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from all secret-related tools.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like tb_secret_clear or tb_type_secret, nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an active session). It only implies usage for storing sensitive values, with no context on exclusions or best practices.

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