browser_open

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It states the constraint of same origin but does not explain what happens if the URL is invalid, whether the new tab gains focus, or the meaning of 'explicitly grant'. Key behaviors like error handling and permissions are omitted.

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 sentence of 15 words, front-loading the key action and constraint. There is no redundancy or unnecessary detail; every word earns its place.

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 lack of annotations, output schema, and schema descriptions, the description should compensate by explaining parameters, return values, and side effects. It only covers the core purpose and constraint, leaving significant gaps that an agent needs to use the tool correctly.

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 explain the parameters. The 'url' parameter is partially inferred (the URL to open), but 'collaboration_id' is completely unexplained—its purpose (identifying the shared tab) is not mentioned. The description adds minimal value beyond the raw schema.

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 verb 'Open' and the resource 'new tab', with a specific constraint 'on the same origin as an existing shared tab'. This distinguishes it from siblings like browser_navigate (which works on the current tab) and browser_tabs (which lists tabs). 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 implies that the tool should be used to open a new tab on the same origin as an existing shared tab, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like browser_navigate or browser_focus. No exclusions or prerequisites are provided, leaving the agent to infer context.

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