launch_browser

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that every opened page is instrumented, that no extension or page changes are needed, and that a first tab can optionally be navigated. It does not mention lifecycle details such as whether the launch is blocking or what happens on failure, but the core behavioral trait is clearly communicated.

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?

Two sentences with no redundancy. The primary action and critical instrumentation guarantee are front-loaded, and the optional URL behavior is summarized efficiently. Every clause 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?

For a launch tool with three optional parameters and no nested objects or enums, the description covers the essential purpose, the instrumentation behavior, and the optional navigation. It is slightly incomplete because it doesn't mention the return value or the relationship to attach_browser, but the agent can still invoke it correctly based on the provided information.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema: it repeats the optional URL navigation and mentions auto-detection implicitly through 'controlled by this plugin,' but it does not provide additional context for headless or executablePath beyond what the schema already states.

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 specifies the action ('Launch a new Chrome/Edge instance'), the target resource, and the key differentiator: automatic WebGPU instrumentation with no extension or page changes. This distinguishes it from attach_browser, which presumably connects to an existing browser, without needing to open either schema.

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 conveys when to use this tool: when a new Chrome/Edge instance is needed and instrumentation is required. It implies this should be used instead of manually launching a browser or using attach_browser for a pre-existing instance. However, it does not explicitly name the alternative or state 'use attach_browser if the browser is already running.'

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