open_workspace

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

With no annotations to lean on, the description fully discloses behavior: it waits for the tab to register, explains the rationale for waiting, and warns about the side effect of opening a second tab (it becomes the preferred client and the user's tab silently stops being edited). It also details the meaning of the wait and force parameters. This is excellent transparency for an unattributed tool.

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 longer than a one-liner but every sentence earns its place. It front-loads the core action, then logically explains the waiting behavior, the already-connected case, and parameter semantics. The structure is clear and the prose is tight, with no fluff or repetition.

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?

The description covers the tool's role (fixing the no_workspace issue), its waiting semantics, the force edge case, and the side-effect of multiple tabs. Given the output schema exists and parameters are well-documented, there are no significant gaps. It even covers the failure mode that would otherwise confuse an agent: 'coming back before the page has loaded its JavaScript would just fail again.'

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?

The schema only provides types and defaults, but the description's 'Args' section fully explains both parameters: wait is 'seconds to wait for the tab to connect. 0 returns as soon as the browser has been handed the URL' and force means 'open a tab even when one is already connected.' This adds crucial meaning beyond the schema, making the 0% schema description coverage irrelevant.

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 opens with a specific, actionable statement: 'Open ComfyUI in a browser, so the workspace tools have a tab to talk to.' It clearly identifies the resource (ComfyUI) and the action (open in browser), and distinguishes itself from sibling workspace tools by emphasizing it's the setup prerequisite for them. It's not a tautology and provides a clear purpose.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'The bridge needs a page open - with none, every workspace_* tool fails with no_workspace and the only fix is a human opening one. This is that fix.' It even provides behavioral exclusions, such as leaving an already-connected tab alone and the caveat that using force can cause the user's own tab to silently stop being controlled. This goes beyond generic context.

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