create-browser

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but fails entirely. It doesn't indicate that this is a mutation operation, what permissions are required, whether it's idempotent, what happens on success/failure, or any side effects. The agent has no behavioral context beyond the tool name.

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?

While technically concise with just two words, this is under-specification rather than effective brevity. The description fails to provide any meaningful information that would help an agent understand or use the tool, making it inefficient despite its short length.

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 complex mutation tool with 12 parameters, nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It provides no behavioral context, no usage guidance, and relies entirely on the schema for parameter documentation, leaving critical gaps in understanding how to properly invoke this 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 12 parameters with detailed descriptions and examples. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Create a browser' is a tautology that restates the tool name without specifying what kind of browser is being created or its purpose. It doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'open-browser' or 'update-browser', leaving the agent to infer details from the parameter schema 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'open-browser' or 'update-browser'. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing a group ID from 'get-group-list', or when this creation tool is appropriate over other browser-related operations.

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