browser_start

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does convey that the tool starts Chrome and automatically takes over via CDP, but it omits behavioral side effects such as occupying a port, launching a persistent process, or behavior when the port is already in use.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the core action and mechanism immediately, and every word contributes meaning.

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 five parameters, no annotations, and non-trivial launch/takeover behavior, one sentence is insufficient. The description does not cover prerequisites, lifecycle expectations, or how this tool relates to the browser_* sibling tools, although the presence of an output schema partially accounts for return-value documentation.

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 needed to compensate, but it only indirectly references the port. The meanings and nuances of headless, timeout_ms, user_data_dir, and executable_path are left entirely to their names and default values in the schema.

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 identifies a specific verb ('start'), a resource ('managed Chrome'), and a mechanism ('CDP takeover') on a given port. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like browser_connect or browser_open, though it does not name alternatives explicitly.

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 intended use is implied: launch a managed Chrome instance before CDP-based interaction. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus browser_connect or browser_open, nor any exclusion criteria or prerequisite conditions.

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