Connection status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds that it is a 'cheap diagnostic' (a performance trait) and specifies the exact information it returns (browser, target, buffer sizes), which goes beyond the annotations. It does not contradict the annotations and provides useful behavioral context, though it does not elaborate on side effects or output format beyond what is implied.

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 two short sentences with zero fluff. It front-loads the core purpose ('Show the attached browser, active target and buffer sizes') and then delivers a crisp usage recommendation. Every word earns its place; it is both efficient and well-structured.

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 parameterless read-only diagnostic with annotations covering safety, this description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool does, when to use it, and what information it provides. Without an output schema, the mention of 'browser, active target and buffer sizes' gives enough detail for an agent to understand the expected output. Nothing essential is missing.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially 100% covered. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics because there are none. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description correctly focuses on what the tool returns rather than inputs.

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 precisely what the tool does: 'Show the attached browser, active target and buffer sizes.' It names specific outputs and is clearly distinct from the many sibling navigation/action tools, which perform mutations or interactions. The verb 'Show' and the resource 'browser status' are specific, and the description avoids tautology.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use it: 'call it first when something looks wrong.' This is a clear usage recommendation that positions it as a diagnostic first step, distinguishing it from action-oriented siblings. It also implies it is not for performing actions, which is consistent with the tool's read-only nature.

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