Open in New Tab

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 clearly indicates a side effect (creating a new tab) and implies user-facing presentation, but omits execution details such as whether the call blocks until the page loads, error handling for invalid URLs, or whether the tab persists after the session.

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?

Single sentence of 13 words with the action front-loaded. Every word earns its place—'present content' and 'enable user interaction' efficiently convey the dual use cases without 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 the tool's simplicity (single required parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description adequately covers the essential information needed for invocation. It appropriately omits unnecessary details while capturing the core user-facing purpose.

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 100%, providing complete documentation for the 'url' parameter. The description references the URL but does not add semantic meaning beyond the schema (e.g., no mention of supported protocols, relative vs absolute URLs, or validation rules), meriting the baseline score.

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 specific action (Open), resource (URL), and location (new tab), and clearly distinguishes from siblings list_tabs (which lists existing tabs) and read_tab_content (which reads from tabs) by emphasizing the creation of a new browsing context.

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?

Provides clear context for when to use the tool ('to present content or enable user interaction with webpages'), giving the agent criteria for selection. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when NOT to use it (e.g., when extraction without opening is needed).

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