browser_launch

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool starts Chrome with a debug port, uses its own profile, and is a no-op if already running. However, it omits details like permissions, side effects, return value, and handling of port conflicts.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. Every part (start Chrome, debug port, own profile, no-op condition) is useful and directly relevant.

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 one-parameter tool with a well-documented schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers what the tool does and its no-op behavior. The lack of return-value explanation is mitigated because the schema indicates the port is managed by other tools, but a brief note on return could improve completeness.

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 schema provides a rich description for the single 'port' parameter (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states.

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 states a specific verb 'Start' and resource 'Chrome' with key details: debug port and own profile. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like browser_open, but the action of launching a browser instance is distinct enough.

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 note 'no-op if already running' implies a usage condition, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as browser_open or browser_goto. The agent must infer the appropriate context.

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