chrome_connect

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the prerequisite (--remote-debugging-port) and the optional tab selection behavior. It does not describe failure modes or side effects, but 'attach' is sufficiently non-destructive and the prerequisite is clearly stated.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, no wasted words. Every clause adds information relevant to using the tool correctly.

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?

For a simple tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what Chrome to attach to and how to optionally select a tab. It could mention what happens on failure or return value, but the prerequisite is clearly stated, making it complete enough for an agent.

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 coverage is 100% (both parameters have descriptions in the schema), so the baseline is 3. The description adds 'Optionally pick the tab by URL substring' which reinforces urlContains but does not add new meaning beyond the schema's own description. Port is also unchanged.

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 uses a specific verb ('Attach') and identifies the exact resource ('already-running Chrome that has --remote-debugging-port'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like chrome_launch. It also adds the optional tab-selection capability, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 phrasing 'attach to an already-running Chrome' clearly implies usage when Chrome is already running with the debug port, implicitly contrasting with chrome_launch for new instances. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide exclusion criteria, so it stops short of full guidance.

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