chatgpt_browser_lifecycle

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: the browser remains open after the MCP call ends and is reused by later calls without re-entering the site. This goes beyond what the tool name alone reveals.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the most important behavioral detail. Every clause earns its place; there is no redundant or filler content.

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 zero-parameter status-read tool, the description covers the essential context: what state is read and how subsequent calls interact with the browser. It does not enumerate possible return values, but the simplicity of the tool makes that a minor gap rather than a serious omission.

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 has zero parameters, so schema coverage is effectively 100% and there is no parameter burden on the description. The baseline of 4 applies because the description is not required to explain parameter meaning.

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 clear verb ('读取') and resource ('专用 ChatGPT 浏览器的常驻状态'), making the tool's purpose understandable. It does not explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like chatgpt_status or chatgpt_close_browser, but the lifecycle-specific scope is clear enough.

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 useful context about browser persistence and reuse by subsequent calls, which implies when lifecycle state matters. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor does it give any 'when not to use' guidance.

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