browser

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, non-idempotent and non-readOnly, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful lifecycle context the annotations don't carry: it may launch a browser, it attaches via debug port, and it acts on DOM selectors rather than pixels. It stops short of noting auth needs or per-action side effects, so it isn't a 5.

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 concept, then workflow, then alternatives — a sensible ordering. The trailing enumeration of the 12 actions partially duplicates the schema enum, which is slightly wasteful, but it does help an agent pick an action. Two dense sentences plus a list, no filler.

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 12-action multiplexer with no output schema, the description covers the setup sequence and the primary interactions well. It does not describe what individual lower-traffic actions do (evaluate, list_tabs, wait_for) or what any action returns or errors on, which is a real gap for a tool this broad. Still substantially complete for the main path.

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 all 12 parameters are already documented in the schema (timeout, maxLength, amount, selector, etc.). The description adds only an implicit hint about selector/text usage via the DOM-vs-pixels framing and the action list; it gives no format or constraint detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 names the mechanism precisely (Chrome DevTools Protocol control) and the operating model (DOM elements via CSS selector rather than screen pixels), then enumerates the full action set. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the `computer` sibling, so an agent can route between them without opening either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit workflow: start with `navigate` or `connect`, then `page_context`/`click`/`type` on that page. It also distinguishes when to use `navigate` (agent's own CDP browser, launching if needed) vs `connect` (attach to a browser already on the debug port), and names `computer` as the less reliable alternative for web automation.

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