browser_connect

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the two behavioral modes (launch persistent profile, CDP attach) but omits important details like starting a new browser instance, requirements for CDP, side effects on existing state, or return value behavior. The disclosure is minimal but not entirely absent.

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 a single sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the primary action ('Connect') and quickly lists the key modes and browser support. Every word earns its place.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description is too sparse: it fails to mention prerequisites (e.g., Chrome installed, remote debugging port), what happens after connecting, how to verify the connection, or error conditions. A connection tool with side effects requires more context for safe and correct usage.

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 only 25% (only cdp_url has a description). The description adds meaning by clarifying the mode and browser via 'launch persistent profile' and 'Chrome or Firefox', but it does not explain the 'headless' parameter. With low schema coverage, the description must compensate more; it only partially does so.

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 'Connect' with a clear resource ('Chrome or Firefox via Playwright') and details two distinct connection modes (launch persistent profile or CDP attach). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like browser_screenshot or browser_disconnect by establishing it as the connection step.

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 implies usage by stating the connection options and the browser types, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention prerequisites. There is no exclusion guidance, such as 'use CDP only if Chrome is already running with remote debugging.'

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