touch-browser

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action and optional target opening. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as permissions needed, whether this is a read/write operation, potential side effects (e.g., resource consumption), error conditions, or response format. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema.

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 and optional feature. It's front-loaded with the main action and avoids unnecessary words, 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 complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain parameter semantics, behavioral context, or return values, which are critical for a tool that creates a new tab with multiple inputs. This leaves the agent with insufficient information to use the tool 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 but only mentions 'target' implicitly. It doesn't explain any of the 5 parameters (sessionId, target, sourceRisk, sourceLabel, allowDomains), their meanings, formats, or relationships. This fails to add value beyond the bare schema, leaving parameters largely undocumented.

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 a new headless research tab') and resource ('tab'), with the optional capability to open a 'narrowed public web target immediately.' It distinguishes from siblings like 'tb_open' (likely general opening) by specifying 'headless research tab,' but doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings.

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 when needing a new research tab, optionally with a target, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives like 'tb_open' or 'tb_search_open_result.' It mentions 'narrowed public web target' as an option, which hints at context but lacks clear when/when-not rules or prerequisites.

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