连接本地 Edge 浏览器

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

The annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds valuable guarantees: it will not launch a new browser, will not close the user's window, and will not read or save credentials. It also discloses the returned browser version, CDP endpoint, and tab information, going beyond the structured annotations.

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?

Three dense sentences each earn their place: the connection method and target, the prerequisite relationship to other tools, and the return value plus safety guarantees. Essential information is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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 two optional parameters, no output schema, and existing annotations, the description still explains the return value (browser version, CDP endpoint, tab URLs/titles), the prerequisite Edge launch flag, and the non-destructive safety profile. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly and interpret the result.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both `force` and `cdpPort` well. The description reinforces that the port must match the --remote-debugging-port value, but it adds no substantial new semantic meaning beyond what the parameter schemas already provide.

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 verb (connect via CDP), a specific resource (local Microsoft Edge started with --remote-debugging-port), and clearly frames itself as the prerequisite step for all other tools. This distinguishes it from the sibling browser-action and cloud-management tools without ambiguity.

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?

It explicitly says this is a prerequisite for all other tools and that other tools will auto-connect when not connected, giving a clear sense of when a manual explicit connection is needed. It does not spell out when not to use it, but the guidance is sufficient for an agent to decide.

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