chatgpt_open_browser

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

The annotations already disclose that the tool is not read-only, is idempotent, and is non-destructive. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: a separate browser is launched by default, the login_pending state signals that human login is required, and a configured Chrome direct-connect mode exists. It still does not describe what a successful return looks like or whether the browser persists afterwards.

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?

Three compact sentences lead with the core action and then explain the login branch. The wording is efficient, with no filler. It could be slightly tighter by folding the Chrome mode into the lead sentence.

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 no output schema and no parameters, so the description's main job is to explain the login handshake. It does this fully: it names the login_pending signal, gives the user recovery steps, and mentions the alternate connection mode. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 takes zero parameters, which sets the baseline at 4. There is no parameter syntax for the description to explain, so nothing is missing on this dimension.

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: it connects to ChatGPT and, by default, opens a separate browser instance. That is a clear verb+resource pair. However, it does not distinguish this tool from the sibling tool chatgpt_status, so an agent must infer which one establishes the connection and which one checks connection status.

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 a concrete retry workflow: if login_pending is returned, the user logs in via the official window and then calls the tool again to verify the connection. It does not say when this tool should be called relative to the other ChatGPT tools, nor does it mention the alternative of checking state with chatgpt_status first.

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