browser_open

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

Annotations already set destructiveHint=true, and the description adds the conditional safety note 'Safe when already open,' which is useful context. However, it does not disclose what destructive behavior occurs when the browser is not already open, leaving the risk unclear.

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 extremely brief with no filler; the safety qualifier is a meaningful addition. The wording 'this MCP Chrome' is slightly jargon-heavy but does not harm usefulness.

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 zero-parameter tool, the description is minimal, but it omits the implications of the destructive hint and any expected return/behavior after opening. Given the destructiveHint annotation, an agent needs more context about the risk when the browser is closed.

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 tool has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so the description need not add parameter details. The baseline of 4 applies.

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 action ('Open') and the resource ('this MCP Chrome'), distinguishing it from browser_close and browser_status. It does not elaborate on what 'open' entails (launching a new process vs. focusing an existing one), so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call browser_open versus sibling tools like browser_new_tab or navigate. The phrase 'Safe when already open' is a safety qualifier, not a selection criterion, and no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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