ghost_browser_launch

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers rich behavioral context: per-id process/profile/DevTools isolation, concurrent processes never colliding, windowed mode running on a hidden desktop that never takes focus, and explicit warning that a new Chromium window takes foreground on creation. These are exactly the behavioral traits an agent needs to anticipate side effects.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose first, then isolation guarantees, then parameter defaults, then safety caveats, then interaction model. It is front-loaded with the core action and avoids filler, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 has no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the key operational concerns: isolation semantics, browser and mode defaults, when windowed mode is appropriate, desktop safety, and how tabs should subsequently be driven. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke and use the tool correctly.

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 only 33%, but the description substantially compensates by explaining the mode enum values ('headless' invisible/default, 'windowed' real window on hidden desktop), listing the browser enum values, and stating the default behavior ('first installed'). It also enriches 'id' by explaining that each id gets its own process, profile, and DevTools port.

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 ('Launch') and resource ('isolated browser for background automation'), and clearly distinguishes itself from ghost_browser_attach by emphasizing that each call creates its own process, profile, and DevTools port. The scope is unmistakable and the tool cannot be confused with its siblings.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: headless is the default, windowed should be used 'only for sites that behave differently headless,' and tabs should be driven via ghost_tab_* without focusing the window. However, it does not explicitly name ghost_browser_attach as the alternative when an existing browser should be controlled, leaving that comparison implicit.

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