browser_connect

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

With no annotations, the description clearly discloses the core side effect: establishing a CDP connection to an already-running profile, not starting one. It also communicates the required precondition. It does not detail connection lifecycle/cleanup, but for a simple connect operation this is a minor gap.

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, with the essential operation first and the crucial sequencing second. No filler or repetition of the schema field.

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 single-parameter, low-complexity tool with an output schema, the description is largely sufficient: it states what is connected, via what protocol, and when to call it. It could add a note about calling browser_disconnect when done, but the sibling tool list makes that inferable.

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%; ws_endpoint is already documented as 'CDP WebSocket endpoint (from octo_start_profile)'. The tool description reinforces the origin of the endpoint but does not add substantial meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

Description uses a specific verb+object: 'Connect to a running Octo Browser profile over CDP', making the action and protocol explicit. The phrase 'running ... profile' plus 'Call after octo_start_profile' clearly distinguishes it from launching a profile (octo_start_profile) and from browser_disconnect.

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?

It gives an explicit prerequisite and timing cue: 'Call after octo_start_profile.' This tells an agent when in the workflow to invoke it. It does not explicitly name alternatives/exclusions (e.g., browser_disconnect for teardown), so it falls short of a full 5.

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