workbench_browser_start

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal two important behaviors: the browser session is persistent and the tool reuses an existing official web login rather than prompting for new credentials. It does not mention side effects, failure modes, or what happens on reconnect versus fresh start, but the core behavior is reasonably transparent.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded and the authentication detail is concise and relevant. Every word earns its place.

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 zero parameters and the straightforward nature of a start/reconnect operation, the description provides enough context for an agent to understand the tool's role. Mentioning persistence and existing login is valuable. It could be slightly stronger by noting the relationship to browser_run or browser_inspect, but this is a minor gap for such a simple 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter detail for the description to add. A baseline of 4 is appropriate because there is nothing the description must clarify about arguments.

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 identifies the action ('Start/reconnect') and the resource ('persistent local browser'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It is not a tautology and has enough specificity to distinguish it from generic browser operations, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools.

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 phrase 'Start/reconnect' implies when the tool should be used: when the persistent browser session needs to be initiated or resumed. The note about using its 'existing official web login' gives useful context about authentication expectations. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus siblings like workbench_browser_run or workbench_browser_inspect.

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