connect_or_open_browser

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the main behavior (opening or attaching to a browser) and mentions return type, but it does not explain side effects, what 'take over' means for existing sessions, whether it launches a new process, or any state changes. This is a significant gap for a tool without annotation support.

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 with the main purpose. It has separate sections for parameters and return value, which aids scanning. However, there is a typo ('包括 、debug_port' with an extra space) and the '必要参数' vs '可选键' wording is internally inconsistent, slightly reducing clarity.

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 simple connection tool, it covers the core purpose, parameter keys, and return type. But it lacks guidance on when to invoke it (e.g., before page operations), what happens when no browser is open, and the structure of the returned browser info. Given the absence of annotations and output schema, more completeness would be expected.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists the config dict and the optional keys (debug_port, browser_path, headless), which adds meaning beyond the schema's bare object definition. However, it doesn't explain the semantics or types of these keys, and it confusingly labels config as '必要参数' (required) while the schema marks it optional with a default.

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 a specific action: '打开或接管已打开的浏览器' (open or take over an already open browser) using DrissionPage. This verb+resource pair distinguishes it from sibling tools, which operate on tabs or page content rather than the browser session itself.

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 it is the entry point for browser interaction, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like 'new_tab' or 'get'. There is no 'when not to use' or mention of sibling tools, so the guidance is only implicit.

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