start_chrome

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

The description mentions remote debugging but lacks detail on practical effects: e.g., does it open a visible window? Is it blocking? What happens if Chrome is already running? With no annotations, the description carries full burden and is insufficient.

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 extremely concise (a single sentence), which is efficient but misses essential details. It is not structured with bullet points or sections to aid readability.

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 presence of three parameters and an output schema (likely returning connection details), the description is too sparse. It does not explain return values, parameter effects, or any usage context beyond the basic action.

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 description provides zero information about the three parameters (port, headless, chrome_path). Since schema_description_coverage is 0%, the description must compensate, but it adds no meaning beyond the schema's names and types.

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 (Start Chrome) and the key feature (remote debugging enabled). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'start_chrome_and_connect', which likely performs a similar initial step but includes an immediate connection.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For instance, it does not indicate that 'start_chrome_and_connect' might be preferred for a combined start-and-connect workflow, or that this tool is standalone for manual connection later.

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