browser_ensure_window

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key stateful behavior: create or reuse a dedicated window and persist/pass back window_id on later calls. However, it does not mention side effects on existing windows, what happens when the window is gone, or any permission/return details beyond the schema.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then states the persistence behavior. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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 plus schema covers the essential invocation details: URL, task binding, dimensions, focus, and window_id reuse. It could be more explicit about the return value/format, but 'pass back window_id on later calls' strongly implies the tool returns or exposes the window_id. Missing minor specifics about edge cases like a stale window_id, yet those are partially addressed in the schema.

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 67%, and the description adds some meaning for window_id via 'Persist and pass back window_id on later calls.' It does not add semantics for width, height, or task beyond what the schema already provides, so it only partially enriches parameter understanding.

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?

Description clearly states 'Create or reuse a dedicated Chrome window for agent work' and specifically calls out keeping tabs/groups off the user browsing window. This is a specific verb + resource purpose and effectively distinguishes this tool from the many browser interaction siblings.

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?

It gives clear context for when to use the tool: when the agent needs its own dedicated Chrome window and wants to avoid polluting the user's browsing session. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use, so it stops short of a 5.

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