roxy_create_browser

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool creates a browser, but it does not mention side effects (e.g., whether the browser opens immediately, what happens to existing browsers, permissions required, or resource consumption). This is insufficient for a tool with many configuration options.

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 sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it is very short and does not utilize any structure like bullets or sections. It is adequate but could be more efficient by including key points.

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 complexity of this tool (15 top-level parameters, nested objects like proxyInfo and fingerInfo, 3 enums, and no output schema), the description is very sparse. It does not explain what the return value looks like, prerequisites (e.g., workspace must exist), or when to use this over batch creation. The description is not complete enough for the tool's complexity.

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 100%, so every parameter already has a description in the input schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond 'complete configuration control'. Therefore, it meets the baseline of 3 without adding significant value.

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 a browser with complete configuration control', which specifies the action and the resource. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'roxy_batch_create_browsers', which also creates browsers but in batch. The phrase 'for expert users needing full parameter access' hints at the intended audience but lacks explicit differentiation.

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 for expert users needing full parameter access, which suggests that this tool is for fine-grained configuration. However, it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives like roxy_batch_create_browsers for bulk creation or roxy_update_browser for modifications.

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