launch_chrome_with_profile

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

No annotations are provided, so the description itself must disclose behaviors. It mentions using the 'real profile' which implies access to persistent data, but does not disclose potential side effects like profile locking, impact on existing Chrome instances, or whether the tool blocks or returns immediately.

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 primary purpose and followed by an essential usage warning. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or irrelevant information.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose and usage constraints adequately. It does not mention what happens after launch (e.g., return values), but this is not critical for this simple 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?

The input schema already covers the single parameter (profileDirectory) with a clear description and default value. The tool description adds minimal additional semantic value beyond the schema, so it does not need to compensate.

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 ('Launch Google Chrome') and the specific resource ('with your real profile'), including details about cookies, extensions, and sessions. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that manage existing sessions or perform other browser actions.

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?

Explicitly states when to use the tool ('only when the user EXPLICITLY asks') and when not to ('Do NOT call it automatically or proactively'). This provides clear usage boundaries, though it does not name alternatives, the guidance is strong.

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