connect_debugger

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It discloses that a session_id is returned and must be used subsequently, and describes the target CDP endpoint types. However, it does not mention error conditions (e.g., connection failures), side effects, or permissions needed, leaving gaps in 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 two sentences, front-loading the primary purpose. Every sentence adds value: first sentence defines the tool, second gives usage context and result. No unnecessary words, achieving high conciseness.

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 moderate complexity (2 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential purpose, usage context, and the key output (session_id). It lacks details about error handling or lifecycle (e.g., need to disconnect), but the presence of a disconnect sibling mitigates this. Overall fairly complete.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description in the tool text adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what is already in the schema's parameter descriptions, which are thorough. Thus, the description does not increase the understanding of parameters beyond 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 explicitly states 'establishes a new debugging session by connecting to a Chrome DevTools Protocol endpoint,' clearly indicating the action (connect) and resource (debugging session). It distinguishes from sibling tools as the entry point for debugging operations, and mentions the returned session_id required for subsequent calls.

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 concrete when-to-use guidance: 'Use this to connect to Node.js, Chrome, Edge, or other CDP-compatible runtimes.' It implies that after connection, other debug tools are used. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternative tools, though the sibling list makes this clear.

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