launchChrome

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

With no annotations present, the description must fully disclose behavior. It details the dual-instance setup, port auto-detection, dryRun behavior, openDevTools effect, and fallback instructions to relay the command and _ui field. This is exceptionally transparent for a launch tool.

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 well-structured with step markers and front-loaded purpose. It is longer than a single sentence but every sentence adds value, including dryRun, openDevTools, and fallback. The structure improves readability, though it could be slightly tighter.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers essential context: default port, dual-instance, auto-detection, dryRun behavior, and fallback action. It even mentions relaying the _ui field, compensating for the lack of output schema. It does not explain all possible return fields but is adequate for a launch action.

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 coverage is 100%, meaning each parameter already has a description. The tool description reinforces defaults (port, user-data-dir) and adds practical usage context for dryRun and openDevTools, but does not introduce meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states it launches a dedicated Chrome instance with remote debugging enabled, specifying the resource (Chrome) and the exact action (launch). It distinguishes from siblings by indicating this is the first step in a debugging workflow and mentions a key differentiator (--user-data-dir for dual-instance).

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 description provides clear context for when to use the tool, such as being STEP 1, auto-detecting an active port to skip launch, and suggesting dryRun to preview for user confirmation. It gives concrete usage advice (e.g., relaying the command if automatic launch fails) but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like startDebuggingSession or connect.

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