browser_launch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'debugging enabled' but does not disclose side effects (e.g., process lifetime, port binding, whether it blocks), prerequisites (e.g., executable path), or what the function returns. This is insufficient for a tool that launches a browser.

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 a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.

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?

Without an output schema or annotations, the description must be self-sufficient, but it fails to convey critical context such as expected return values, blocking behavior, or whether the browser remains open. For a tool with four optional parameters and potential side effects, this is a significant 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?

The input schema provides descriptions for all four parameters, resulting in 100% schema description coverage. The description itself adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema's field descriptions, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Launch' and the resource 'a new browser instance', with the specific qualifier 'with debugging enabled'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like browser_connect (which likely attaches to an existing instance) and browser_disconnect.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention connecting to an existing browser, listing tabs, or other contexts, leaving the agent without exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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