ausca_browser_session_connectReturn one short-lived Ausca CDP relay URL for an active lease. The upstream provider URL and credential are never disclosed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| session_id | Yes | ||
| idempotency_key | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | Yes | ||
| connection | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide idempotency and safety hints, and the description adds valuable behavioral context: the URL is short-lived, requires an active lease, and the upstream provider URL/credential are never disclosed. This goes beyond the structured fields with meaningful security and lifecycle information.
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 short sentences deliver all essential information with no filler. The core function is front-loaded and the security note is a valuable addition without bloating the description.
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 output schema, annotations, and the simplicity of the two parameters, the description covers the essential invocation context: active lease, short-lived relay URL, and credential handling. It could mention how to confirm an active lease exists, but that is a minor gap.
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% and the description does not explain either 'session_id' or 'idempotency_key'. Although the names and regex patterns give some clues, the description provides no additional meaning or guidance on how the parameters relate to the lease or the returned 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 states a specific verb ('Return'), the exact resource ('Ausca CDP relay URL'), and a key condition ('for an active lease'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like status or close by indicating this one issues a connection artifact rather than inspecting or ending a session.
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 clearly implies usage on an existing, active lease, which is useful context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is strong enough for an agent to understand when to invoke it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action: inbox list/read/delete/attachment/status, browser connect/close/status, invocation get/cancel/prepare, and offer search/get. Although messages vs read and status could appear similar, the descriptions clearly separate bulk summaries, single-message reads, and lease state. There is no meaningful overlap between any two tools.
All names share the uniform ausca_ lowercase snake_case prefix and are grouped by functional area, making the overall pattern easy to predict. However, the final segment alternates between verb actions (delete, read, connect, cancel, prepare) and noun resources (attachment, messages, status), so it is not a strict verb_noun convention. This is a minor inconsistency rather than chaotic naming.
Thirteen tools cover three distinct functional areas, each with a focused set of operations and no obvious redundancy. This sits comfortably in the ideal 3–15 range and every tool appears necessary for the server's purpose.
The inbox lifecycle is well covered with list/read/attachment/status/delete, and invocation/offer areas support the key operations of search, resolve, prepare, get, and cancel. Creating a browser session or actually submitting an invocation appears intentionally externalized to the transport or offer terms, so there are only minor gaps rather than dead ends.