suno_open_browser

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds context beyond basic functionality: 'stealth mode' implies enhanced privacy or anti-detection features, and the headless default explanation for 'Google OAuth' hints at authentication needs. However, it doesn't cover other behavioral traits like error handling, performance, or side effects, leaving gaps for a tool that likely involves browser automation.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the main purpose and following with parameter details. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential information without redundancy. However, the structure could be slightly improved by separating usage context more clearly.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (browser automation with stealth mode) and the presence of an output schema (which reduces need to explain return values), the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and key parameter semantics but lacks details on behavioral aspects like error conditions or integration with other tools, making it adequate but with clear gaps.

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 description adds meaningful semantics for the single parameter 'headless,' explaining its default value (False) and purpose ('headful for Google OAuth'), which goes beyond the schema's basic type and title. With 0% schema description coverage, this compensation is effective, though it doesn't detail other potential parameters or edge cases.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Open Chrome browser with stealth mode for Suno AI.' It specifies the verb ('Open'), resource ('Chrome browser'), and context ('for Suno AI'), distinguishing it from siblings like suno_close_browser or suno_login. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other browser-related tools if any existed, but the context makes it clear.

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 by mentioning 'for Suno AI' and the default headless setting for 'Google OAuth,' suggesting this tool is used in authentication or interaction contexts with Suno AI. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like suno_login or other siblings, leaving the agent to infer based on context.

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