connection_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses a side effect (starting the local relay), a sensitive return value (a private pairing code), and an explicit handling constraint (do not publish or store it in shared files). It omits lifecycle details such as what happens if the relay is already running or how to stop it.

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 sentences, no filler. The gating condition comes first, then the action and result, then the security constraint, so the agent gets routing information before mechanics.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly explains the return value (the pairing code and its destination, the extension connection page). For a no-parameter setup tool that is nearly complete, though it does not address re-invocation or relay state.

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, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. It correctly implies the tool is invoked without arguments.

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 verb and resource: it starts the local relay and returns its private pairing code for the extension connection page. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like visit_page, pages, or script_import, none of which touch relay/pairing setup.

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?

It gives an explicit activation condition ('Use only when the user asks to set up or repair this browser connection') and a clarifying precondition ('No browser connection is required'). It stops short of naming what to use instead for other browser operations, but the when/when-not framing is unusually strong.

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