ruyi_attach_browser

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool does not spawn a process, does not navigate, and preserves the external browser after MCP exit or bridge timeout—valuable context beyond the schema. It does not mention potential failure modes or side effects of takeover, but covers the most critical safe behaviors.

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 entire description is a single dense sentence that front-loads the main action (takeover via port) and then adds behavioral exclusions and retention semantics. Every clause earns its place, with no redundant or filler content.

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 an attach tool with 4 parameters, the description covers the core use case, prerequisites (external Firefox with BiDi port), non-actions (no new process/no navigation), and post-exit retention. Without an output schema, no return-value explanation is required. Minor missing details like error behaviors or how the browser is selected beyond the port, but schema fills most structured gaps.

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% for all 4 parameters (port, address, profilePath, traceEnabled), each with clear descriptions. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb+resource: '接管已启动的浏览器' (take over an already-started browser) via the Firefox WebDriver BiDi port. It clearly distinguishes from siblings by explicitly stating it does not create a new process or navigate pages, which differentiates it from ruyi_new_page, ruyi_navigate_page, and ruyi_browser_quit.

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 implies when to use: when an external Firefox browser is already running with a remote debugging port. It also explains a key benefit (browser persists after MCP exit or bridge timeout), which guides selection for persistent external browser control. It lacks an explicit comparison to alternatives, but the 'does not create a new process' exclusion provides clear when-not guidance.

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