oc_workspace

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

Annotations are all false and offer no hints, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the handle persists across reconnects but not restarts, and implies non-idempotency by saying 'call open once.' It doesn't describe error behavior or side effects of closing, but the lifecycle info adds meaningful transparency beyond the schema.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by critical usage context. No wasted words; every sentence 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?

For a simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the main usage pattern and handle lifecycle. It doesn't detail return value format or error cases, but these are minor for this tool's simplicity and the schema's completeness.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the functional role of the action parameter ('open returns a new handle') and the need to pass the handle to other tools, which goes beyond the schema's per-parameter descriptions.

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 tool's purpose: 'Open, list, or close a browser workspace.' The verb-resource pair is specific and the added context about returning a handle differentiates it from sibling browser tools, which all depend on this handle.

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 explicit usage instructions: 'call action="open" once, then pass the handle on each browser call.' It also explains the handle's lifecycle (survives reconnects, not server restart), giving clear when-to-use context without needing to infer from siblings.

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