chrome

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the key behavior of launching or connecting with remote debugging, but it does not mention side effects like starting a new process, the meaning of connection_id, or what happens after a successful connection. It adds some context but lacks depth.

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 a single sentence, immediately front-loaded with the verb 'Connect/launch', and contains no filler. Every word contributes to the core purpose, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 the tool's role as a gateway to other operations (query_elements, navigate, etc.), the description is incomplete. It does not explain that this establishes a debugging session used by sibling tools, nor how connection_id relates to future tool calls. The absence of output schema and annotations increases the burden, and the minimal description leaves critical context unstated.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add significant parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, though it does align with the 'action' parameter. It doesn't explain the role of connection_id or action-specific restrictions beyond what schema descriptions already state.

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 it connects to existing Chrome/Electron or launches a new instance with remote debugging, using specific verbs and a resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'chrome_list_connections' by being the entry point, though it does not explicitly differentiate from 'electron_connect' or 'electron_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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'electron_connect' or 'chrome_list_connections'. It simply states what it does without mentioning exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative scenarios, leaving the agent without decision context.

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