connect_to_browser

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the action is to connect to an already opened browser, implying a setup or initialization step, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this requires specific permissions, if it's idempotent, what happens on failure, or any rate limits. The description is too vague for a tool that likely involves system interaction.

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, efficient sentence in Russian that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could be more front-loaded with key details if it were longer.

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 likely involves system-level browser connectivity (complexity), no annotations, no output schema, and a simple input schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens after connection (e.g., returns a session handle, enables other tools), error conditions, or dependencies, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to use it effectively.

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 input schema has 1 parameter with 100% description coverage, documenting the port and default value. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, as it doesn't mention the port or any other inputs. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description doesn't compensate with additional meaning.

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 ('Подключиться к' - 'Connect to') and the target resource ('уже открытому Яндекс Браузеру' - 'already opened Yandex Browser'), making the purpose evident. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'navigate' or 'list_tabs', which might involve browser interaction, but the focus on connection is specific.

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 minimal guidance: it implies usage when a Yandex Browser is already open, but offers no explicit when-to-use rules, alternatives (e.g., vs. opening a new browser), or exclusions. Without context on prerequisites or comparisons to siblings, it lacks actionable usage advice.

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