desktop_browser_launch

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 the one-shot user-data-dir (auto-deleted on close), that it won't hijack the user's existing profile, that the port binds only to 127.0.0.1, and that it returns the port number. It omits failure/timeout behavior and whether the caller must close the instance.

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 core capability and the key scoping guarantees are front-loaded, and the sentences are dense with useful facts. Slightly verbose with the parenthetical profile explanation, but no real waste.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explicitly says it returns the port number and points to desktop_cdp_open for the next step, covering the round-trip an agent needs. All optional params have defaults documented in the schema.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters and their defaults. The description echoes the userDataDir purpose (persist login state) and headless behavior, adding only marginal value 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?

States a specific verb (启动/launch) and resource (a CDP-debuggable Edge/Chrome instance) and names the essential flags. It is clearly distinguishable from desktop_cdp_open, which it explicitly hands off to.

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?

Gives clear context: use this first, then connect via desktop_cdp_open, and headless=true is for automation while false shows a real window. It does not explicitly state when NOT to use it (e.g., if an instance is already running), but the workflow guidance is strong.

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