launch_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 details behaviors such as headless mode, OS fingerprinting, proxy support, humanized mouse movement, geoip inference, blocking images/WebRTC, and engine-level tracing. It also notes that enable_trace requires a custom build. However, it does not mention potential side effects like whether a previous browser instance is closed or resource implications.

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 separate Args and Returns sections. Parameter descriptions are bullet-like and to the point. Every sentence adds value without 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?

The tool is complex with 9 parameters, all covered. The return type is described as 'dict with status, config, and page list,' which is adequate without an output schema. However, it lacks details on the page list structure and does not explicitly relate to sibling tools for subsequent steps (e.g., navigate). Overall, it is mostly complete.

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%, meaning the schema provides only titles and types. The description compensates by explaining each parameter in the Args section with concise descriptions (e.g., 'headless: Run in headless mode (default False).'), adding 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 'Launch the Camoufox anti-detection browser' with a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like close_browser or navigate, which have different purposes.

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 implies usage before other browser interactions but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like check_environment or close_browser. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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