roxy_open_browsers

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

No annotations provided, so description should disclose behavioral traits. It mentions opening browsers and returning endpoints, but does not indicate side effects (e.g., locking, state changes) or the impact of forceOpen parameter. The description is insufficient for a mutation tool without annotations.

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?

Extremely concise: a single sentence with 12 words. Front-loaded with the action and outcome. No redundant information.

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?

Despite no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core action and output. However, it lacks context about whether browsers must already exist, how dirIds relate, and what happens with forceOpen. The schema fills some gaps but description could be more complete.

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?

Input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The tool description does not add any extra meaning beyond the schema. No further clarification needed but no added value either.

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 (open browsers) and the output (CDP WebSocket endpoints). It differentiates from roxy_close_browsers and roxy_create_browser by implying existing browser instances, but does not explicitly say 'opens existing browsers'.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like roxy_create_browser or roxy_update_browser. The description lacks any contextual cues about prerequisites or scenarios.

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