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 offers minimal behavioral insight. It mentions typing into an interactive field but doesn't disclose what happens after typing (e.g., does it trigger events?), whether it's safe for sensitive data (despite a 'sensitive' parameter), or any rate limits. The description is too vague for a mutation tool with no annotation coverage.

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. There's no wasted verbiage, 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 (6 parameters, mutation tool), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover parameter meanings, behavioral outcomes, or error conditions, leaving critical gaps for an AI agent to use this 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 adds no parameter details. It doesn't explain what sessionId, tabId, targetRef, value, sensitive, or ackRisks mean or how they interact. For a tool with 6 parameters (3 required), this is a significant gap in understanding usage.

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 ('Type into') and target ('interactive field inside an existing daemon session/tab'), which is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like tb_click or tb_submit. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from tb_type_secret, which appears to be a related tool for typing secrets.

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 mentions 'inside an existing daemon session/tab', implying prerequisites, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like tb_submit or tb_type_secret. There's no mention of when-not-to-use scenarios or clear alternatives.

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