cypress_open

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

The description discloses that the tool opens the Test Runner in headed mode, but does not explain side effects (e.g., whether it blocks, starts a server), authentication needs, or required project state. With no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps for safe agent invocation.

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, front-loaded sentence with no waste. Every word serves to communicate the core purpose and mode concisely.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, yet the description does not mention return behavior (e.g., process handle, success indication) or whether it blocks execution. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the interaction lifecycle.

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%, and the description adds no additional meaning beyond the inline schema descriptions ('Browser to open', 'Path to Cypress project'). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents both parameters.

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 the action ('Open'), resource ('Cypress Test Runner'), and mode ('headed mode for interactive debugging'). It effectively differentiates from sibling tools like cypress_run (runs tests) and cypress_execute_command (executes commands).

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 implies usage for interactive debugging by stating 'headed mode', but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as cypress_run or cypress_execute_command. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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