browser_open

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Open website' implies a navigation action but does not state whether the current tab is replaced, whether a new tab is opened, whether it waits for page load, or what happens on invalid URLs. This is a minimal behavioral statement with no added transparency.

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?

At two words, the description is extremely concise but not appropriately sized for the information it needs to convey. It lacks structural detail such as a sentence explaining behavior or usage. The brevity reads as under-specification rather than effective conciseness.

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 tool with one parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the effect on the browser session, relationship to sibling browser tools, or error behavior. A simple but functional description would need at least a sentence about navigation semantics.

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 compensate for the undocumented 'url' parameter. 'Open website' adds no meaningful semantics beyond the parameter name itself; it does not clarify URL format, required protocol, or how the URL is interpreted. The description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 a specific verb ('Open') and resource ('website'), making the core action clear. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like browser_new_tab or browser_switch_tab, which also relate to opening or navigating to pages. It is clear but lacks the distinctions that would earn a 5.

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 gives no guidance on when to use browser_open versus alternatives such as browser_new_tab or browser_switch_tab. There is no context about expected workflows, prerequisites, or conditions for selection. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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