open_browser_url

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral transparency. It merely states 'Opens a web URL link' without noting potential side effects, prerequisites (e.g., browser installation), or whether it blocks or returns a status. This is a minimal disclosure.

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 with 14 words, immediately stating the core action and supported browsers. No filler or redundant details are present.

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 simple action with a fully documented schema, the description is minimally viable but lacks context about failure modes, return behavior, or when to prefer this over sibling tools like run_applescript or open_app. This is a clear gap for an unannotated tool.

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 input schema already fully describes both parameters (url and browser) with 100% coverage. The description adds little beyond restating the browser options ('Safari, or Chrome'), which duplicates the enum values. It provides no additional semantics such as URL format expectations or default-browser behavior.

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 the tool 'Opens a web URL link in the default browser, Safari, or Chrome,' clearly indicating a specific verb ('Opens') and resource (web URL) with browser options. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like open_app, which open applications rather than URLs.

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 no explicit when-to-use guidance, alternatives, or exclusions. It only describes the action and browser choices, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage from the tool name and schema.

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