connect_cdp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states only the action 'Connect' without mentioning prerequisites like Chrome running with --remote-debugging-port, whether the connection persists, or what happens if called when already connected. This is a significant gap for a tool that establishes a stateful connection.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences. The first sentence states the purpose directly, while the second provides actionable sourcing guidance. Every word 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 a simple one-parameter tool, the description is minimally adequate, but it omits crucial context such as the need for Chrome to be running with remote debugging enabled and the tool's role as a prerequisite for other CDP operations. Given the absence of annotations and output schema, more guidance would improve completeness, though the tool's simplicity keeps it from being severely deficient.

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 input schema fully documents the single parameter wsUrl with type and example, so the schema already provides high coverage. The description adds a helpful hint about where to obtain the URL but does not introduce additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema offers. Thus, a baseline score of 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 uses a specific verb ('Connect') and resource ('Chrome instance via WebSocket URL'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like discover_targets or fetch_* by focusing on establishing the connection itself. The mention of where to obtain the URL adds further specificity.

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 provides clear context on when to use this tool by telling the agent where to find the wsUrl (from /json/version or an existing connection). This implies a prerequisite but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, such as using discover_targets to locate targets first. Overall, the usage context is clear but not exhaustive.

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