computer_open

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, open-world, and destructive behavior. The description adds useful context: existing-chrome uses the personal profile and user-approved remote-debugging flow, and native OCR runs locally. It does not explain destructive side effects or permissions beyond that, but annotations lower the burden.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core operation and followed by high-value details about connection, allowedOrigins, and OCR. Every sentence earns its place with 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?

Given 10 parameters, no output schema, and no schema-level descriptions, the description is too sparse to make the tool fully callable. It omits parameter semantics for most arguments, side effects, return information, and how this tool fits with sibling tools like computer_act.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must clarify the parameters. It explains connection and allowedOrigins, and hints at browser/macOS modes via kind, but leaves url, profile, bundleId, headless, recordVideo, and ocr largely unexplained. This is insufficient for a 10-parameter tool.

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 tool opens a dedicated browser, connects to existing Chrome, or opens a native macOS app, giving a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly contrast sibling tools like computer_act or computer_inspect, but the three modes make the purpose understandable.

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 when to use the tool (when a browser or macOS app is needed) and gives setup guidance for allowedOrigins. However, it never names sibling tools or states when not to use this tool, leaving the when-to-use guidance implicit rather than explicit.

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