connect_to_browser

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

No annotations provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only says 'Connect' with no details on side effects, permissions, state changes, or failure modes. The behavioral impact is entirely 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 short and front-loaded, but it is under-specified. It earns its place by stating the purpose, but misses essential details that could be added without much verbosity.

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 (one parameter, output schema exists), the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, prerequisites, or how it differs from similar tools. The output schema could fill gaps, but the description itself is lacking.

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 single parameter 'port' has a default but no description in the schema or tool description. Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning—it doesn't explain that port is the debugging port or how it should be set.

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 running Chrome instance'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'start_chrome' and 'start_chrome_and_connect' which deal with starting the browser, not connecting.

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 vs alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., Chrome must already be running) or scenarios where connecting is preferred over starting a new instance.

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