browser_is_connected

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

There are no annotations provided, so the description must fully describe behavioral traits. It only restates 'check connection status' without adding any detail about side effects, return type, error conditions, or what 'connected' refers to. This is essentially a tautology of the tool name and provides no extra transparency.

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, short sentence with no extraneous content. It is front-loaded and each word contributes to meaning. For a tool of this simplicity, the conciseness is ideal.

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 low complexity (no parameters, likely a simple boolean check), the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not explicitly state what the return value represents or what 'connection' means in this context, and there is no output schema. A slightly richer description would remove ambiguity, but the tool is simple enough that this is a minor gap.

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, and the schema has 100% coverage (trivially). The description needs to add no parameter-level explanation. According to the baseline for zero parameters, a score of 4 is appropriate.

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 '检查浏览器连接状态' clearly states the action (check) and the resource (browser connection status). It is distinct from siblings like browser_launch or browser_get_version by focusing on connectivity. However, it lacks explicit detail on what 'connection' means or what the result will be, which is only implied by the tool name.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any preconditions, related tools, or scenarios where this check is appropriate. Without any exclusions or context, the agent receives no help in deciding when to invoke this tool.

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