comet_connect

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals an important side effect: 'Auto-launches Comet if needed,' which is valuable context beyond the empty schema. It does not describe the return format or failure states, but the output schema likely covers that, and the auto-launch detail addresses the main behavioral surprise.

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 with zero filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the usage ordering instruction is placed in the second sentence, keeping it compact and easy to parse. Every word contributes necessary information.

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 no parameters and an output schema is present, the description covers the essential contextual needs: it establishes the tool's role as a prerequisite and discloses auto-launch behavior. It could mention idempotency or what 'connected' means, but with the sibling context and output schema, an agent has enough to call this tool correctly.

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 input schema is an empty object, meaning there are no parameters to document. The description correctly adds no param details since none exist. The baseline of 4 for a zero-parameter tool applies, and the description does not need to compensate for any schema gaps.

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 action ('Connect') and a clear resource ('the Comet browser via CDP'), and distinguishes this tool from its siblings by establishing it as the mandatory first step. An agent can immediately understand this is the connection/setup tool, not an action like navigate or click.

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 explicit instruction 'Call this before using any other comet tool' provides unambiguous usage ordering. It makes clear this tool is a prerequisite, and all sibling comet tools are the contexts where this should be used. No alternative connection method is needed because this is the singular entry point.

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