start-chrome-debug

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions remote debugging is enabled, which is key, but lacks details about process lifecycle (e.g., whether it blocks, how to access the debugging interface, potential side effects on existing Chrome instances).

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and purpose, and contains zero unnecessary words. It is efficient and easy to scan.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves significant gaps: it does not explain how the debugging interface is accessed (e.g., port, URL), whether the tool returns immediately or blocks, or how it fits into the workflow with sibling network tools. This is under-specified for an action-oriented 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%, with both headless and userDataDir having descriptive text. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score 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 the tool starts Chrome with remote debugging enabled, naming the specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like query-network-traffic and get-network-details, which focus on retrieving network data rather than launching a browser.

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?

It provides clear context by stating 'Use this tool to view network traffic and request details,' implying the tool is a precursor to network inspection. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, despite the existence of sibling query tools.

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