comet_connect

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool connects to the browser and may auto-start it, which is useful behavioral context. However, it lacks details on potential side effects (e.g., resource usage, permissions needed), error handling, or what 'connect' entails operationally, leaving gaps in transparency.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Connect to Comet browser') and adds a key behavioral note ('auto-starts if needed') without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with no parameters.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does but lacks context on when to use it relative to siblings, potential outcomes, or integration details. For a connection tool, more guidance on state management or error scenarios would improve completeness.

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, and the schema description coverage is 100%, so there's no need for parameter documentation in the description. The description appropriately avoids discussing parameters, focusing instead on the tool's action. A baseline of 4 is applied since no parameters exist, and the description doesn't add unnecessary details.

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 ('Connect to Comet browser') and the conditional behavior ('auto-starts if needed'), which provides a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from its siblings (like comet_ask or comet_stop), which would be needed for a score of 5.

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 when needing to connect to the browser, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., comet_ask for queries or comet_stop for termination). There's no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or specific contexts, leaving the agent with minimal direction.

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