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 mentions aggregation and synthesis but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, side effects (e.g., if it modifies data), or output format. This is insufficient for a tool that processes session data, as it leaves key behavioral traits undefined.

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 without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the main action and resource, making it easy to parse and understand 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 synthesizing session data, no annotations, no output schema, and low parameter coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address what the synthesis report contains, how it's formatted, or any behavioral nuances, leaving significant gaps for the agent to operate effectively.

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 doesn't explain the semantics of 'sessionId' (e.g., what constitutes a valid session) or 'noteLimit' (e.g., its purpose or constraints), failing to add meaning beyond the bare schema. This leaves parameters ambiguous for the agent.

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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('aggregate', 'synthesize') and resources ('visited tabs', 'daemon session', 'citation-ready synthesis report'), making it easy to understand what it does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'tb_telemetry_summary' or 'tb_session_close', which might have overlapping session-related functions.

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, such as other session or tab-related tools in the sibling list. It doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or specific contexts for invocation, leaving the agent to infer usage from the purpose alone.

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