comet_connect

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds valuable context about auto-starting the browser if needed, which goes beyond a basic 'connect' action. However, it lacks details on what 'connect' entails (e.g., establishing a session, authentication needs, error handling, or side effects), leaving gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Connect to Comet browser') and includes a crucial behavioral note ('auto-starts if needed') without any wasted words. Every part of the description earns its place by adding value.

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's simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It covers the basic purpose and a key behavioral trait, but lacks details on what 'connect' means operationally, potential errors, or how it relates to sibling tools. For a connection tool with no structured context, this leaves the agent under-informed.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate here. A baseline of 4 is applied for zero-parameter tools, as no additional semantic clarification is needed beyond what the schema provides.

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: 'Connect to Comet browser (auto-starts if needed)'. It specifies the verb ('connect') and resource ('Comet browser'), and includes the helpful behavioral detail about auto-starting. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like comet_stop or comet_mode, which prevents a perfect score.

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 'auto-starts if needed', suggesting this tool should be used when a connection to the Comet browser is required. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like comet_stop or comet_poll, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. This leaves the agent with only inferred context.

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