open_url

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the core action but doesn't mention side effects (e.g., bringing Chrome to foreground), required state (e.g., Chrome must be open), or error handling. Minimal transparency for a tool with no annotations.

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, short sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the main action. However, it could be more structured (e.g., list parameters) without losing conciseness; as such, it is efficient but not maximally informative.

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 has 2 required parameters with no schema descriptions, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the 'app' parameter, expected return value, or constraints. A more complete description would address these gaps.

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 description must compensate. It fails to define the 'app' parameter or clarify the format of 'url'. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema's structure, offering zero value for parameter understanding.

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 action: 'Open an http(s) URL in Google Chrome.' It identifies the specific resource and verb, distinguishing it from sibling tools like click or drag. The additional 'Local helper for browser smoke tests' provides context but is not required for purpose clarity.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it's for browser smoke tests but does not exclude other scenarios or mention prerequisites. Lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.

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