Launch slot

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and largely meets it: it discloses attach-when-already-running behavior, that starting a closed slot without headless only yields a confirmation request, and that headless/proxy apply only on first launch. It stops short of describing the return payload or failure modes, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Front-loaded with the governing rule and organized into discrete decision points, with almost every sentence adding operational content. The headless/closing paragraph is slightly repetitive ("ask first, then call with headless"), a minor structural cost.

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 9-parameter, zero-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description covers intent, safety gating, and parameter interplay thoroughly. The only shortfall is that, absent an output schema, it could have said more about what a successful launch returns beyond the confirmation-request case.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description goes beyond by encoding user-intent mapping ("slot 3" → 3, port 14052 → subtract 14049) and cross-parameter interaction rules (slots/urls pairing order, count launch order, proxy first-launch-only). These rules are not derivable from the schema fields 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?

"Starts slot Chrome" gives a specific verb and resource, and the description immediately delimits it against siblings: "other tools never start a closed slot." An agent can distinguish this from browser_tab_new or browser_status without touching the schema.

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?

Explicit when-to-use (only when the user explicitly asks), when-not (nothing else starts a closed slot), and how to choose between alternatives (headless vs windowed, slot vs slots vs count, ask first if unstated). It even routes follow-up work to subagents, leaving little to inference.

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