vibeside_spawn_browser

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers only a default port and the opaque phrase 'zero-zombie lifecycle management'. It does not say whether an existing instance is killed or reused, what happens if the port is occupied, whether the call blocks until the browser is ready, or what platform/executable requirements exist.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no redundant padding. The trailing 'zero-zombie lifecycle management' is marketing jargon that conveys little, but it does not bloat the description significantly.

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 six-parameter lifecycle tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits the essentials: what the call returns, how failure/timeouts are surfaced, whether the spawned browser persists across calls, and what to do next (connect/navigate). The agent cannot act confidently on this alone.

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 all six parameters (port, headless, extraArgs, timeoutMs, userDataDir, executablePath) are already documented in the schema. The description only restates the port default, adding no syntax or behavioral meaning beyond the structured field, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Launch) and resource (Chrome or Edge instance) plus the key configuration (remote debugging port), which distinguishes it from vibeside_connect and vibeside_stop_browser. It stops short of explicitly naming which sibling to use instead, so no differentiation credit above 4.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: nothing says this must be called before navigate/click/type tools, nor how it relates to vibeside_connect (attach to an existing browser) or vibeside_browser_status. The agent must infer the entire workflow from the tool name.

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