Open URL in logged-in Chrome

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

Beyond the annotations (which already indicate non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent, non-destructive), the description adds only the profile constraint. It does not disclose whether opening reuses an existing window, what happens if Chrome is not running, or error behavior for invalid URLs.

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 17-word sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every word is necessary, and no extraneous information is included.

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 (2 parameters, no output schema), the description provides a basic understanding but lacks details on behavior like blocking, tab reuse, or error handling. Siblings like 'http_request' have different semantics, but the description does not fully clarify this distinction.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by specifying that the URL must be HTTP/HTTPS and that the profile belongs to the current Windows user. However, it does not explain that 'profile' is optional with default 'Default', nor does it clarify valid profile names or URL format requirements.

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 tool opens an HTTP/HTTPS URL in Google Chrome using a specific Windows user profile. It uses strong verb-resource language and distinguishes itself from siblings like http_request or browser_control by specifying interactive Chrome launch.

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 such as http_request or browser_control. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., Chrome installed) or exclusions (e.g., not for headless browsing).

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