chrome_open_tab

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral transparency. It discloses that the tool reuses an existing endpoint rather than launching a new browser, which is useful. However, it omits details like whether the tab is focused, what happens on failure, or whether a return value is provided. This is adequate for a simple tool but not highly transparent.

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 a single, information-dense sentence with no unnecessary words or repetition. It efficiently conveys the core function and the key prerequisite.

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?

The tool is simple, but the description lacks important contextual details: it doesn't state what the tool returns (e.g., tab ID, success confirmation), nor does it mention that the Chrome instance must be launched with remote debugging enabled. Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, this leaves gaps in the agent's understanding.

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%, so the description must compensate for parameter explanations. It doesn't mention 'url' or 'debugUrl' at all, relying on the parameter names being self-explanatory. While the names are reasonable, the description adds no value beyond the schema structure.

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 action: 'Open a new tab through an existing Chrome DevTools Protocol endpoint.' It specifies the verb (Open), the resource (a new tab), and the context (existing CDP endpoint). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like chrome_launch (starts a browser) and chrome_navigate (moves the current tab).

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 phrase 'through an existing Chrome DevTools Protocol endpoint' provides clear context that an already-running browser is required, implying this tool should be used when such an endpoint exists. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is strong enough to guide the agent.

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