attach_browser

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds useful behavior details—new tabs and navigations are instrumented automatically—and implies existing tabs are not unless reloadPages is set. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, prerequisite conditions beyond the flag, error behavior, or what 'instrumented' entails in practice, leaving gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 concise sentences with zero fluff. The key action is front-loaded, and the behavioral note is appended efficiently. Every word earns its place, matching the standard of the high-calibration example.

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 an attach tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential info: prerequisite (already-running with debug port), core action, and automatic instrumentation. It is missing return format and error handling, but given the tool's simplicity and the schema covering parameters, it is mostly complete. The absence of explicit return-value documentation is a minor gap.

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 both parameters are already documented. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's definitions, hitting the baseline for full coverage. It references 'instrumented automatically' which relates to tool behavior rather than parameter details, so no additional semantic value is provided.

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 it attaches to an already-running Chrome/Edge with the --remote-debugging-port flag. It uses a specific verb (attach) and resource, and the behavior of instrumenting new tabs/navigations distinguishes it from sibling tools like launch_browser or open_page.

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?

It clearly indicates when to use the tool (when a browser is already running with the debugging port). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, such as preferring launch_browser for a fresh browser instance. The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

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