启动浏览器

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

Only mentions automatic debug port allocation; does not disclose side effects such as spawning a separate process, resource usage, or impact on existing browser sessions. The annotation only provides readOnlyHint: false, so the description adds minimal behavioral 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, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. The action is front-loaded and the structure is efficient.

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 description omits any mention of the return value or how the launched instance can be referenced by other tools. It also does not state that launching is a prerequisite for other browser operations, reducing completeness given the surrounding sibling tools.

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 input schema already provides descriptions for all five parameters, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional context or clarification about how parameters affect the launch behavior.

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 verb 'launch' and the resource 'browser instance', with a specific detail about automatic debug port allocation. It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like browser_connect.

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 use for new instances but does not explicitly compare with browser_connect or state prerequisites. No direct guidance is given on when to prefer this tool over alternatives.

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