browser_use

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

The description discloses a critical side effect: if the native browser lacks CDP, it will be closed and relaunched with CDP and the user profile. This is important because it may terminate an existing session. However, no other behaviors such as error handling or requirements are mentioned.

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 brief and well-structured with bullet points. It front-loads the purpose and uses minimal text to convey key options and side effects, earning 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 description covers the core functionality and the main side effect, which is crucial. Yet it lacks guidance on when to use the tool versus siblings, and the confirmKill parameter is left ambiguous. Given the simplicity of the tool, it is nearly complete but has clear gaps.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds some meaning for the 'target' parameter by specifying valid names (Brave, Chrome, Edge) and ports (9222, 9223). However, the 'confirmKill' parameter is not explained, and there is no explicit mapping of parameters to their roles in the described behavior.

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 verb 'Bascule' (switch) and the target resource (connexion to a specific browser). It distinguishes the tool by specifying acceptable targets (names, ports) and the native browser mode, which differentiates it from sibling tools like browser_launch or browser_restart.

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 for switching to a specific existing browser (native with profile) or connecting via ports, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like browser_launch or navigate_page. No exclusions or alternatives are given.

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