browser_attach_existing

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. The verbs 'ตรวจสอบ' (check) and 'แสดง' (display) imply a read-only, non-mutating operation. However, the description does not disclose prerequisites such as Chrome/Edge being launched with remote debugging enabled, nor what happens if port 9222 is unreachable.

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 front-loaded sentence that states the action, target, port, and relevant tab sources without filler. Every clause adds information needed to understand and invoke the tool.

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?

For a tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, the port, and the tab sources, and it partially describes the return behavior as a list of tabs. It is incomplete, though, because it omits output structure, failure behavior, and usage boundaries relative to sibling browser/ecommerce tools.

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 schema exposes only one optional port parameter with a default of 9222 and no parameter description (0% coverage). The description reinforces that the port refers to the Chrome/Edge debugging connection, adding modest context beyond the bare schema, but it does not explain acceptable values or behavior when a non-default port is used.

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 specific action: checking the Chrome/Edge connection on port 9222 and listing Shopee/TikTok/Lazada store tabs. It clearly identifies the resource and the expected result, and it is distinct from the ecommerce_* siblings, though it does not explicitly call out that it attaches to an existing browser session.

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 when to use the tool—when an agent needs to verify a browser debugging connection and see relevant store tabs—but it gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or pointers to alternatives such as browser_detect_challenge or the ecommerce tools. Usage context is present but not stated as a decision rule.

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