touch-browser

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but offers limited behavioral insight. It mentions 'headless' and 'public docs', hinting at automated browsing without UI and public access, but doesn't disclose permissions, rate limits, session lifecycle, or what 'create' entails (e.g., resource allocation, timeouts). More context on operational traits is needed for a mutation tool.

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 key information ('Create a headless research session') and adds qualifying details ('for public docs and reference workflows'). Every word contributes meaning without redundancy, making it appropriately sized 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 no annotations, no output schema, and a mutation tool (create), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what the session returns, how it integrates with other tools, error conditions, or behavioral constraints. For a tool that likely initiates a stateful process, more context is needed to guide 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?

With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter (allowDomains), the description doesn't mention parameters at all. However, since there's only one optional parameter, the baseline is high. The description doesn't compensate for the lack of schema info, but the low parameter count reduces the impact, warranting a 4 for minimal parameter burden.

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 ('Create') and resource ('headless research session'), specifying it's for 'public docs and reference workflows'. It distinguishes from siblings like tb_session_close (closing) and tb_session_synthesize (processing), though it doesn't explicitly contrast them. The purpose is specific but could be more precise about what a 'session' entails.

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 minimal guidance, implying usage for public docs and reference workflows, but lacks explicit when-to-use rules, prerequisites, or alternatives. It doesn't clarify if this should be used before other tb_* tools or how it relates to siblings like tb_open or tb_profile. No exclusions or comparative advice is given.

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