attach

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It only states the action and use case, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it modifies the session, requires specific permissions, or has side effects. The description is terse and leaves the behavioral contract largely opaque.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It is efficient and avoids redundancy, though it might be slightly too brief to fully inform the agent. Still, it demonstrates appropriate conciseness.

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?

The description provides the essential use case but leaves out details like prerequisites for CDP connectivity (e.g., Chrome must be running with remote debugging) and what to do after attaching. Given the moderate complexity and absence of output schema, it is minimally adequate but not thorough.

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 coverage is 100%, so all parameters (lease, cdp_url, session) are already documented with descriptions. The tool description adds no extra meaning about parameters, staying at the baseline of 3. It neither compensates nor repeats, which is acceptable given full schema coverage.

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 states a clear action 'Attach to an existing Chrome via CDP', distinguishing it from siblings like 'start' (which likely launches a new browser). It also provides a specific use case ('after manual login on a Cloudflare-walled site'), making the 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?

It explicitly says 'use after manual login on a Cloudflare-walled site', giving a clear context where this tool is preferred. It doesn't explicitly mention alternative tools, but the context implies it's for attaching to a pre-existing session rather than starting fresh. Some guidance on when not to use it would improve it.

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