connect_to_page

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Connect', which implies a state change, but does not detail what happens after connection, whether it is safe/idempotent, or what the tool depends on. This is insufficient for an agent to assess side effects.

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 with no extraneous words, effectively front-loading the core action. It is appropriately sized for a tool with a clear purpose, though could include more context without becoming verbose.

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 tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is under-informative. It does not explain the return value (e.g., connection status), side effects, or prerequisites (e.g., need a prior `check_connection`). For a tool with moderate complexity, more context is needed for safe invocation.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all 4 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'by ID or URL pattern', which aligns with the `id` and `urlPattern` parameters, but does not elaborate on `waitForMs` or `url_pattern`. Thus, the description adequately complements the schema without exceeding it.

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 'Connect' and the resource 'a specific Chrome page target', with criteria 'by ID or URL pattern'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like `check_connection` (which lists targets) or `navigate_to` (which navigates to a URL), making its purpose unambiguous.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as using `check_connection` first to obtain target IDs, nor does it mention prerequisites like an active Chrome connection. It implies usage context (connecting to a target) but lacks differentiation or conditional advice.

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