ghost_browser_attach

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and handles it well. It discloses that Ghost never closes a browser it did not start and that it drives background tabs without switching the user's active tab, which are important side-effect guarantees for an agent.

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 two tight sentences with no wasted words. The core action is front-loaded, the use case is in a parenthetical, and the behavioral caveats are compactly appended.

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 low-complexity attach operation, the description covers the required invocation detail, the target use case, and key behavioral guarantees. It is not a 5 because the optional 'id' parameter remains undocumented and there is no mention of return behavior or failure conditions.

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 clarifies that 'port' is the value from --remote-debugging-port=<port>, which directly aids invocation. However, the optional 'id' parameter is not explained at all, and schema description coverage is 0%, leaving a meaningful semantic gap.

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 action ('Attach') and a precise resource: a browser already running with --remote-debugging-port=<port>. It also names the intended use case ('the user's own logged-in browser'), which clearly distinguishes this tool from launching or closing browsers.

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 explicitly frames when to use the tool: for an already-running remote-debugging browser and for the user's own logged-in browser. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool or list exclusions, so it falls just short of full guidance.

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