launch_browser

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose key behaviors: default headful mode, headless option, and DOM Explorer inspector injection. It does not mention side effects such as browser lifecycle, resource usage, or whether it establishes an interactive session, which would add further transparency.

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 compact and front-loaded, with a one-sentence purpose followed by a structured Args block. Every sentence is useful, though the formatting is slightly loose with inline 'Args:' rather than a formal structure.

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 3-parameter tool with one required parameter and an output schema, the description covers the core purpose, parameter semantics, and default behavior. It does not explain the DOM Explorer inspector's role or integrate with sibling workflows, but those are not essential for a correct call.

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 0%, but the description fully compensates by explaining all three parameters: url with example, headless with default and behavior, and browser_type with enumerated options and default. This adds meaning beyond the schema's bare property definitions.

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 action: opens a visible browser at the given URL and injects the DOM Explorer inspector. It uses specific verbs and resources, and the action is distinct from siblings like scan_elements and close_browser. However, it does not explicitly call out sibling alternatives, so it doesn't fully earn a 5.

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 implies usage context through details like 'headful by default' and 'opens a visible window for the user to interact with,' suggesting when this is appropriate. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to avoid this tool or use an alternative, leaving selection largely to inference.

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