cdp_connect

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions the critical non-launching behavior, the capture_dir side effect (starting to save requests with no count limit), and the return of session_id. It does not detail failure modes or network interaction specifics, but the most important behavioral traits are disclosed.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. Each sentence adds value: the core action, URL format, capture behavior, and return value. No redundant words or filler.

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 connection tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains the main flow: connect, optionally capture, and receive a session_id for later tools. It does not elaborate on error handling or the exact mechanics of the capture filters, but the schema covers those details. The description is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's role.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, providing a baseline of 3. The tool description adds meaningful context by explaining that cdp_url accepts HTTP or WebSocket formats and that capture_dir triggers continuous JSON saving with no count limit. This extra guidance elevates the score above baseline.

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 clearly states the tool's function: attaching to an already-running Chromium browser via CDP, explicitly noting it does not launch a browser. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on connection/setup rather than navigation or DOM actions, and specifies the return value (session_id).

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 clear context: use when a browser is already running and needs to be controlled via CDP. It explicitly excludes launching a browser, providing a 'when not to use' cue. However, it does not name alternative tools for launching or other connection methods, so it stops short of full comparative guidance.

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