repair_browser_connection

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

The description adds that the tool returns concrete repair commands, implying it does not execute repairs itself, which aligns with the readOnlyHint=true annotation. It does not disclose prerequisites or edge cases, but the core non-mutating behavior is clearly communicated.

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 a single 12-word sentence that immediately states the action and intended result. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every word contributes to the meaning.

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?

The tool has four un-documented parameters, no output schema, and the description omits input expectations and output format. The agent can understand the general purpose but lacks the details needed to invoke it correctly, making the description incomplete.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate by explaining the four parameters (browserUrl, wsEndpoint, checkReachability, remoteDebuggingUrl), but it does not. It only references 'Chrome remote-debugging connectivity' without mapping parameters to meanings, leaving the agent unable to infer valid values.

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 diagnoses Chrome remote-debugging connectivity and returns repair commands. The verb 'Diagnose' and the specific resource 'Chrome remote-debugging connectivity' make the purpose unambiguous and distinguish it from broader tools like diagnose_environment.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool or when alternatives might be more appropriate. It does not mention prerequisites, fallback tools, or usage scenarios, leaving the agent to infer relevance solely from the name.

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