browser_connect

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it mostly delivers. It discloses that the tool connects via CDP on port 9222, reuses pages and in-page instances, and that closing only disconnects without closing the external browser process. It does not cover connection failures or authentication, but the essential lifecycle behavior is transparent.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core action is in the first sentence, usage context in the second, and close behavior in the third. Every sentence adds distinct value, and there is no redundant restating of the tool name or schema.

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 covers the tool's purpose, usage context, and non-destructive close behavior, and an output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required. However, it omits the semantics of the cdp_url parameter and does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus browser_start or browser_open. These are notable gaps for a connection tool with zero parameter-level schema descriptions.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for both parameters. It mentions the default port 9222, which helps with the 'port' parameter, but it never explains the 'cdp_url' parameter, its format, or how it interacts with 'port'. This leaves a meaningful gap for an agent deciding what to pass.

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 states a specific verb and resource: connect via CDP to an already-running browser. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it reuses an external browser and its open VTable pages without navigation, and that closing only disconnects rather than killing the process. This makes the tool's role unmistakable relative to browser_open, browser_start, and browser_close.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: when you want to reuse an external browser with already-open VTable pages and drive them directly, avoiding re-navigation. It does not explicitly name alternatives like browser_start or browser_open as the contrast, but the 'reuse external browser' and 'no re-navigation' phrasing implies the alternative scenario well enough.

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