attach_exam_browser

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it explicitly states the read-only boundary (no cookies, no debugger commands, no script execution, no platform writes) and that all UI actions remain with the controller. It omits what the binding itself changes on the MCP side and what happens if the supplied DOM is malformed or the tab is stale.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action in the first clause, followed by the mechanism and the safety boundary. Three short sentences with almost no waste; only the redundant restatement of "read-only API" plus the trailing negative list adds slight bulk.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the safety/mechanism story is covered. Still missing for a tool in a dense exam-browser family: how it relates to attach_exam_session and refresh_exam_browser, and what state exists after binding.

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% across three required parameters. The description meaningfully explains html_source's provenance (document.documentElement.outerHTML via the controller's read-only API), which is the least obvious argument, but leaves tab_id and exam_url entirely undefined in both schema and prose.

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?

"Bind an existing extension-controlled tab using its observed DOM" gives a specific verb and resource, and the qualifier "no CDP or login" narrows the mechanism. It never distinguishes itself from near-identical siblings such as attach_exam_session, attach_course_browser, or refresh_exam_browser, so an agent cannot route on the description alone.

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 implied rather than stated: the tool is for the case where a browser controller already holds a tab and can hand over outerHTML. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or pointer to the sibling that should be chosen for a fresh attach, a refresh, or a course (non-exam) page.

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