touch-browser

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the context ('existing daemon session/tab') but fails to describe key traits: what happens on submission (e.g., page navigation, data processing), potential side effects, error handling, or authentication needs. This is inadequate for a tool that likely performs mutations in a session.

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 and context. There's no wasted verbiage, and it's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity. However, it could be more structured by explicitly listing key parameters or behaviors.

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 has 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameter meanings, expected outcomes, error cases, and how it differs from sibling tools. For a submission tool in a session context, this leaves significant gaps for an AI 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 any of the 4 parameters (sessionId, tabId, targetRef, ackRisks), leaving their meanings and usage unclear. For example, targetRef could be a form ID or element, but this isn't specified. The description adds no value beyond the bare 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 states the action ('submit a form or submit control') and the context ('inside an existing daemon session/tab'), which provides a basic purpose. However, it's vague about what 'submit control' means and doesn't clearly differentiate from siblings like tb_click or tb_type, which might also interact with forms. It avoids tautology by adding context beyond the name/title.

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 implies usage is for submitting within an existing session/tab, but it doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like tb_click (which might submit buttons) or tb_type (which might input data). No explicit guidance on prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons with siblings is provided, leaving the agent with minimal direction.

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