toggle_display

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses critical behavior: switching restarts the browser context, invalidates tabs but preserves cookies/auth. It also mentions the VNC URL in responses. This is thorough and honest.

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 concise, front-loading the main action, and every sentence provides useful context without redundancy. It efficiently covers purpose, usage, side effects, and response details.

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 low complexity (2 params, no output schema), the description covers the essential aspects: input meaning, behavioral side effects, and response field. It could mention error cases or prerequisites, but it's largely complete for a toggle tool.

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 100%, so parameters are well-documented. The description adds value by mapping headless values to modes (false=headed, true=headless, "virtual"=virtual) and explaining the VNC URL behavior, which is beyond the schema's basic description.

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 tool's purpose: toggling browser display mode between headless and headed. It provides specific scenarios (CAPTCHAs, visual issues) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being the only display mode toggling tool.

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 gives clear when-to-use guidance (encounter CAPTCHAs, need visual interaction, then switch back). It also explains the VNC URL for virtual mode. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives, but the context is sufficient.

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