desktop_cdp_open

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the persistent session model and that the port is auto-scanned, but it states '带 url 时会先导航过去' while the schema says url is a filter by default (navigate=false), which is a behavioral conflict an agent could trip over. It also omits whether a browser is launched if none is running and whether only one session may be active.

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?

Four short lines, front-loaded with the core action and session relationship, then selection modes, then the entry-point rationale. Dense and largely waste-free; only the url-navigation sentence works against the tool rather than for it.

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?

For a five-parameter, zero-required, no-output-schema connection tool, the description covers the session model, selection strategies and the Chromium rationale. What's missing is what happens on failure (no debug port found, no target match) and whether the session must be released with desktop_cdp_close.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3 and the schema already explains url, title, index, port and navigate. The description adds the selection modes (title/url substring or index) but muddies the url parameter by implying it always navigates, contradicting the navigate flag's documented default of false.

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 (connect to a browser page, establish a CDP session) and immediately clarifies that all subsequent cdp_* tools operate on that session, which separates it from desktop_cdp_click/type/eval in the sibling list. The added note that this is the entry point for Chromium-family apps (Chrome/Edge/Electron) makes the scope unmistakable.

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 real routing guidance: use this for Chromium apps because UIA can't see inside them, which tells the agent when to prefer CDP over the desktop_perceive/desktop_click family. It does not cover sequencing explicitly (whether desktop_browser_launch is a prerequisite, or that desktop_cdp_close ends the session), so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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