nex_browser_create

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals non-obvious behavior: unset fields use desktop defaults, each window gets an auto-generated fingerprint, and only differing fields need to be passed. This goes beyond the schema and helps the agent predict side effects.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every word adds value. It avoids redundant restatement of the schema and delivers key behavioral information efficiently.

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 (11 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description covers essential context: where creation happens, fallback behavior, and fingerprint generation. It lacks details about return values or interaction with other sibling tools, but these are partly covered by the schema and tool naming. Overall, adequate for an experienced agent.

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 73%, and the description adds meaningful parameter-level context by stating that unset fields fall back to defaults and specifying which types of fields (fingerprint, preferences, layout, startup page) are affected. This complements the schema and clarifies the semantics of optional parameters.

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 'Create NexBrowser environments' and specifies the active workspace, making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like nex_browser_group_create by focusing on environment/window creation.

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?

Provides clear usage guidance: 'pass only the fields that must differ' and explains fallback behavior. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives, it implies when to use this tool (creating windows) and how to use it effectively.

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