clone_chrome_profile

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the tool is safe (reads without modification), copies to a specific directory, checks SingletonLock, and details what is preserved or skipped (with cache details). This is comprehensive.

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 well-structured with headings (SAFE, Args, After clone) and bullet points. It is concise, every sentence adds value, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 (4 parameters, 0 required) and the presence of an output schema (though not shown), the description is complete. It covers the operation, side effects, parameter details, and post-clone actions, leaving no 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description provides detailed explanations for all four parameters. It explains source_profile (use list_chrome_profiles), target_instance_id, skip_cache (excludes large regenerable directories), and overwrite. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 it clones an existing Chrome profile into an isolated location. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_chrome_profiles and spawn_browser by explaining the cloning process and its purpose.

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 mentions prerequisites (Chrome must be closed) and how to use the cloned profile (launch with spawn_browser). It provides a tip to use list_chrome_profiles for source options. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or what alternatives exist.

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