chrome_launch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It reveals the use of a dedicated clean demo profile and guarantees it never touches the user's real browser profile, which is critical behavioral context. However, it does not disclose potential side effects such as port conflicts, process management, or what 'attach' implies if a browser is already running.

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 two sentences with no fluff. Every phrase adds useful information, and the safety guarantee is prominently placed.

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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, one nested object, no output schema), the description covers the main purpose, safety guarantee, and optional URL behavior. However, it doesn't explain what the tool returns or how to consume the DevTools connection, which could be important when chaining with sibling tools like chrome_connect or chrome_navigate. This slight gap prevents a higher score.

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 schema already provides descriptions for 67% of parameters (url and port have clear explanations, windowSize has nested width/height in pixels). The description adds only marginal value by saying 'optionally opening a URL' for the url parameter, but doesn't clarify port or windowSize beyond what schema provides. It doesn't explain how these parameters interact with the demo profile or DevTools.

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 explicitly states a specific action ('Launch (or attach to) Chrome') with a clear resource and scope: a dedicated clean demo profile with DevTools control, optionally opening a URL. It also emphasizes a key differentiator ('Never touches the user's real browser profile'), making it distinct from likely siblings like chrome_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 provides context for when to use the tool: when a clean demo profile is needed and DevTools control is required, with an optional URL. It does not explicitly mention alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough to infer its primary use case.

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