launch

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions initialization but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a one-time setup, if it closes existing browsers, what happens on failure, or if it requires specific permissions. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 two concise sentences that are front-loaded with the purpose followed by usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy or unnecessary details.

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 complexity (initialization with no parameters) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states the purpose and prerequisite usage but lacks details on what initialization entails, potential side effects, or error conditions. For a tool that likely has significant behavioral implications, this is a clear gap.

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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it appropriately doesn't mention any parameters. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools when the schema coverage is complete.

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 tool's purpose: '브라우저와 탭 풀을 초기화합니다' (initializes browser and tab pool). It specifies the verb (초기화/initialize) and resources (browser and tab pool). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_pool_status' or 'release_tab' that also interact with the tab pool.

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 explicit usage guidance: '다른 브라우저 도구 사용 전에 반드시 호출해야 합니다' (must be called before using other browser tools). This clearly states when to use it (as a prerequisite for other tools) and implies when not to use it (after initialization or for operations not requiring browser tools).

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