browser_launch

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the background/foreground distinction, but says nothing about whether the call is idempotent when Chrome is already running, what 'verify' actually does, permission requirements, or timeout/failure behavior.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then the one non-obvious parameter caveat. No filler or redundancy.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the focus caveat is present. But with zero annotation coverage, no sibling differentiation, and two undocumented parameters, the description is only minimally sufficient for a lifecycle-launch tool.

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% for three parameters. The description explains the focus flag well, but url and display are entirely undocumented in both the schema and the description, leaving two of three parameters opaque.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Launch or verify Chrome browser in the background'), which is clear enough to separate it from browser_navigate or browser_focus. However, 'launch or verify' is an odd dual purpose that isn't explained, and it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the other browser lifecycle siblings like browser_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 focus sentence gives one conditional ('only if you explicitly want to bring it to the foreground'), which is useful usage guidance for one parameter. But there is no guidance on when to call this versus browser_status, browser_focus, or browser_navigate, and no prerequisites or state assumptions are stated.

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