touch-browser

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it's a typing action (implying UI interaction), uses stored secrets (implying prior storage via 'tb_secret_store'), and avoids disk persistence (a security constraint). However, it lacks details on error handling, performance, or side effects like whether it clears the secret after use.

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 front-loads the core action ('Type a previously stored daemon secret') and efficiently adds critical constraints ('into a sensitive field without persisting it to disk'). Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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, 0% schema coverage, 4 parameters, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It adequately covers the purpose and security aspect but misses parameter explanations, error conditions, and return values. For a tool handling secrets with multiple inputs, more context is needed for safe 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 4 undocumented parameters. It only vaguely relates to 'targetRef' (the 'sensitive field') but doesn't explain 'sessionId', 'tabId', or 'ackRisks'. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema, failing to address most parameters.

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 specific action ('Type'), resource ('previously stored daemon secret'), and destination ('into a sensitive field') with a key constraint ('without persisting it to disk'). It distinguishes from sibling 'tb_type' by specifying secret typing versus general typing, and from 'tb_secret_store' by focusing on usage rather than storage.

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 context: when you need to input a stored secret into a sensitive field while avoiding disk persistence. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the constraint 'without persisting it to disk' provides clear guidance on its secure application scenario.

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