nex_browser_open

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. It states the tool 'Start[s] NexBrowser environments' and returns status, and reveal a batching/tiling behavior. However, it does not disclose prerequisites (e.g., whether target environments must already exist), side effects (e.g., whether existing sessions are affected), or error handling. The description is not contradictory but leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.

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 two well-structured sentences with no fluff. The core purpose is front-loaded in the opening sentence, and the second sentence delivers a targeted usage guideline. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient.

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?

For a tool with 3 params (one required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is adequate but incomplete. It explains the main purpose and a key usage pattern, but fails to document the required teamId parameter, does not indicate where window IDs come from (e.g., from nex_browser_list), and lacks detail on the returned status format or failure behavior. These gaps are notable but not severe enough to render the description unusable.

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 coverage is 67% (ids and windowId have descriptions; teamId does not). The description reinforces the windowId array usage and explains the benefit of batching, adding value beyond the schema's existing description. However, it entirely omits any explanation of the required teamId parameter, which the schema also lacks. The description does not fully compensate for the missing parameter semantics.

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 states a clear action ('Start') and a specific resource ('NexBrowser environments'), and explicitly mentions the return of 'per-window status'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like nex_browser_create (which likely creates new environments) and nex_browser_close (which stops them). The purpose is unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance for multi-window tasks: 'pass every window ID in one windowId array so Desktop can batch-start and tile them before creating automation sessions.' This tells the agent how to batch requests effectively. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives (e.g., calling individually, or when to use nex_browser_create), so it lacks full exclusionary guidance.

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