ausca_browser_session_statusReturn authoritative status and expiry for one browser-session lease. The lease capability is supplied by the transport and is never a tool argument or response field.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| session_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | Yes | ||
| session | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context by clarifying that the status is authoritative, that the lease capability is transport-supplied, and that the lease is neither a tool argument nor a response field.
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?
Two sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence earns its place by preventing a common misunderstanding about the transport-level lease.
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?
The output schema exists and annotations cover the safety profile, so return values and side effects are mostly handled. However, the description omits usage context and does not explain how to source the session_id, leaving an agent to infer these details.
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 only parameter, session_id, is not described in the schema or the description. With 0% schema description coverage, the description needed to explain how to obtain or interpret session_id, but it only clarifies what is not an argument rather than what the parameter means.
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 names a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('one browser-session lease') and states the exact outcome ('status and expiry'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like ausca_browser_session_connect and ausca_browser_session_close.
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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as connect or close. An agent must infer usage from the tool name and read-only annotations rather than from stated conditions or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action: inbox list/read/delete/attachment/status, browser connect/close/status, invocation get/cancel/prepare, and offer search/get. Although messages vs read and status could appear similar, the descriptions clearly separate bulk summaries, single-message reads, and lease state. There is no meaningful overlap between any two tools.
All names share the uniform ausca_ lowercase snake_case prefix and are grouped by functional area, making the overall pattern easy to predict. However, the final segment alternates between verb actions (delete, read, connect, cancel, prepare) and noun resources (attachment, messages, status), so it is not a strict verb_noun convention. This is a minor inconsistency rather than chaotic naming.
Thirteen tools cover three distinct functional areas, each with a focused set of operations and no obvious redundancy. This sits comfortably in the ideal 3–15 range and every tool appears necessary for the server's purpose.
The inbox lifecycle is well covered with list/read/attachment/status/delete, and invocation/offer areas support the key operations of search, resolve, prepare, get, and cancel. Creating a browser session or actually submitting an invocation appears intentionally externalized to the transport or offer terms, so there are only minor gaps rather than dead ends.