touch-browser

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it lists tabs but doesn't describe what 'daemon tabs' are, how the list is formatted, whether it's paginated, if there are rate limits, or any error conditions (e.g., invalid sessionId). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency about its behavior and constraints.

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 with zero waste—it directly states the action and resource without fluff. It's appropriately sized for a simple list tool and front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to parse 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 tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., output format, error handling), parameter semantics (e.g., sessionId definition), and usage context. While concise, it doesn't provide enough information for an agent to reliably invoke the tool without additional assumptions.

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?

The input schema has 1 parameter (sessionId) with 0% description coverage, meaning the schema provides no semantic details. The description adds minimal context by implying sessionId is needed to list tabs for a specific session, but it doesn't explain what a sessionId is, its format, or where to obtain it. This partially compensates for the low schema coverage but leaves key parameter meaning unclear.

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 ('List') and resource ('all daemon tabs registered for a session'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like tb_tab_close, tb_tab_open, and tb_tab_select by focusing on listing rather than modifying tabs. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list-like tools such as tb_search or tb_telemetry_recent, which slightly limits sibling distinction.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid sessionId), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like tb_search (which might list different data) or tb_tab_select (which interacts with tabs differently). This lack of context leaves usage unclear beyond the basic purpose.

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