Apri pagina

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose real behavior: launching a browser, automatically rejecting non-essential cookies, and two response modes. It omits error/timeout behavior, auth requirements, and what happens if a session already exists, which matters for a tool with side effects.

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?

It is short and front-loaded with no filler, but the telegraphic fragment style ('rows:false: header+counts only; filter: matching rows') makes the two most load-bearing clauses hard to parse.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description is the only guidance, yet it leaves the return shape ('rows') undefined and gives no sibling-selection or failure-mode guidance for a browser-launching 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must define all three parameters. It gestures at 'rows' (false = header+counts only) and 'filter' ('matching rows'), but never explains what a 'row' actually is or what syntax 'filter' accepts, and 'url' is undocumented beyond 'Open URL'.

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 names a specific verb and resource (open URL, starts the browser) plus concrete side behaviors (cookie rejection, returning rows). It does not, however, distinguish itself from any of the eight siblings such as browse_view or browse_search, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

Usage is only implied: the 'rows:false' note hints at a lightweight header-only mode and 'filter' hints at narrowing results, but there is no statement of when to pick browse_open over browse_view or browse_search, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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