chrome_open_tab

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

No annotations exist, so description bears full transparency burden. It states the tool uses an existing endpoint but doesn't disclose failure conditions (e.g., if debugUrl is unreachable), what happens if the endpoint is invalid, or whether the tool returns the tab ID for subsequent operations. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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 brief (one sentence), but conciseness is not a virtue when it sacrifices key information. The sentence is front-loaded and clear, but could be expanded to include parameter guidance and usage context without becoming verbose.

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 output schema and 0% parameter coverage, the description fails to provide essential completeness. The agent needs to know what the tool returns (e.g., tab ID) to chain with other tools like chrome_navigate. The description omits all context necessary for effective use in a multi-tool workflow.

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 0%, meaning the description does not explain any parameters. The schema includes url (default about:blank) and debugUrl (default http://127.0.0.1:9222), but the description omits all parameter details. The agent cannot infer the meaning or expected format of these inputs from the description alone.

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 opens a new tab using an existing Chrome DevTools Protocol endpoint. The verb 'Open' and resource 'new tab' are specific and distinct from sibling tools like chrome_navigate (navigate existing tab) and chrome_tabs (list tabs).

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Doesn't mention that the endpoint must already be running (e.g., from chrome_launch) or that chrome_open_tab is for creating a new tab while chrome_navigate is for navigating an existing one. The agent receives no contextual hints for selection.

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