chrome_launch

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions checking a bridge and opening a URL in an existing profile, but does not clarify whether Chrome is actually launched, what 'connecting' involves, what side effects occur, or what errors or return values to expect.

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 brief and front-loads the core 'check the bridge' behavior. The phrasing 'With url' is awkward, but overall it is appropriately sized and avoids unnecessary detail.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must provide enough context for an agent to invoke this safely and correctly. It does not explain what the local bridge is, what successful execution looks like, when to call this tool relative to the other chrome_* tools, or what the connection step entails.

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%, so the schema already documents the optional url parameter. The description adds a small amount of meaning by saying the url opens in the existing profile after connecting, but it does not elaborate on URL format, behavior when omitted, or failure modes.

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 resource ('local bridge') and a behavior ('check', then optionally 'opens it'), but 'local bridge' is vague and the connection to the tool name 'launch' is unclear. It does not meaningfully distinguish this from sibling tools like chrome_navigate or chrome_tab.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives. The only contextual hint is 'after connecting', which implies sequencing but does not explain prerequisites, whether this should be called first, or when a sibling such as chrome_navigate would be more appropriate.

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