browser_start

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that proxy and geo configuration are inherited from server config (so the agent need not supply them), but says nothing about side effects, resource cost, idempotency if already started, or lifecycle semantics for a spawning operation.

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?

A single tight sentence with the primary action front-loaded and a useful secondary clause about config inheritance. No wasted words, though it is arguably under-specified rather than optimally concise.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is correctly omitted. However, for a four-parameter launch tool with no annotations, the description leaves the parameters and lifecycle behavior (e.g. calling when a browser is already active) undocumented, which is a meaningful gap.

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 0% across four parameters (seed, headless, humanize, fingerprint_profile), so the description must compensate and does not. It names none of them, and the enum options for fingerprint_profile ('auto', 'windows', 'linux_native') are never explained in prose.

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?

Specific verb ('Start') plus resource ('agent browser') clearly identifies the action and separates it from lifecycle siblings like browser_stop and browser_status. It stops short of explicitly naming which sibling to use in what order, but the purpose itself 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 usage (start the browser before driving it) but gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no ordering relative to browser_status/browser_navigate, and no note about what to do if the browser is already running. Usage is inferable from the name rather than stated.

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