apple_chrome

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It merely lists actions without disclosing side effects, destructive potential (e.g., close_tab, js_execute), or the confirm requirement for protected actions. The confirm parameter is only described in the schema, not in the description.

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, front-loaded sentence that identifies the resource and enumerates actions. It is concise with no unnecessary filler, making it easy for an agent to scan.

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 complexity (14 actions) and lack of output schema or annotations, the description is too thin. It does not explain the confirm mechanism, return behavior, or situations requiring specific actions. The schema provides action definitions, but the description alone is insufficient for safe and correct invocation.

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 fully documents all parameters, including the action enum with per-action descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond listing action names, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 purpose: 'Control Google Chrome browser' and lists all supported actions. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like apple_safari by explicitly naming Chrome as the target resource.

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?

Usage context is implied by 'Control Google Chrome browser' and the action list, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like apple_safari or when not to use it. No exclusions or preferred scenarios are mentioned.

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