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 states it 'returns' events, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify what 'recent' means (e.g., time window), whether results are paginated, or any rate limits. This is inadequate for a tool with potential data retrieval complexities.

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 purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for the tool's apparent simplicity, with zero wasted content.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, behavioral traits, or parameter usage, making it insufficient for an AI agent to reliably use this tool in a complex environment with many sibling tools.

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 ('limit') with 0% description coverage, and the tool description provides no parameter information. Since schema_description_coverage is low (<50%), the description fails to compensate by explaining the 'limit' parameter's role or semantics, leaving it undocumented. The baseline is 3 due to the single parameter, but no value is added.

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 ('Return') and resource ('recent pilot telemetry events') with scope ('for the current runtime'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'tb_telemetry_summary', which might serve a similar telemetry-related function.

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 like 'tb_telemetry_summary' or other telemetry-related tools. It lacks context about prerequisites, exclusions, or typical scenarios for invoking it, leaving usage entirely implicit.

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