browser_connect

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the connection mechanism (WebSocket debugger URL) and the default behavior (localhost:9222 if omitted). However, it doesn't state what happens on failure, whether it replaces an existing connection, or whether the connection persists across calls. For a connection tool, this is a moderate gap.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the core action, and includes the essential default behavior. Zero wasted words.

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 single-parameter connection tool, the description covers the core usage. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it doesn't explain what a successful connection returns, how to verify the connection, or error behavior. An agent might not know if it needs to call browser_status afterward to confirm.

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 schema already documents the wsUrl parameter with an example and default behavior. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Connect') and resource ('already-running Chrome instance via WebSocket debugger URL'), which clearly distinguishes it from browser_launch (which starts a new instance) and browser_disconnect (which tears down). It doesn't explicitly name those siblings, but the action is unambiguous.

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 it: when a Chrome instance is already running and you have a WebSocket debugger URL. It doesn't explicitly say 'use browser_launch instead if no instance is running' or mention alternatives, but the context is reasonably clear given the sibling set.

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