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 primary action (closing a tab) and a side effect (updating active tab), but lacks critical details: whether this is destructive (likely yes, but not stated), what happens to unsaved data, permission requirements, error behavior, or what 'daemon tab' specifically means. The description is minimal and leaves significant behavioral aspects unspecified.

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 extremely concise (one sentence) and front-loaded with the primary action. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or verbose language. It efficiently communicates the core functionality without unnecessary elaboration.

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 a tool with 2 parameters (0% schema coverage), no annotations, no output schema, and a potentially destructive operation (closing tabs), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain parameter meanings, behavioral consequences, error handling, or what 'daemon tab' entails. For a tool that likely modifies state, this leaves too many 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 for two undocumented parameters. It provides no information about what 'sessionId' or 'tabId' represent, their format, how to obtain them, or their relationship. The description mentions 'daemon tab' but doesn't clarify if this relates to either parameter. This leaves parameters semantically ambiguous.

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 ('Close one daemon tab') and the resource ('daemon tab'), with a secondary effect ('update the active tab if needed'). It distinguishes from sibling 'tb_session_close' by focusing on tabs rather than sessions, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other tab-related tools like 'tb_tab_list' or 'tb_tab_open'.

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 like 'tb_session_close' (for closing entire sessions) or 'tb_tab_select' (for switching tabs without closing). The description implies it's for closing a specific tab, but offers no context about prerequisites, error conditions, or when not to use it.

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