browser_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully enumerates the four pieces of state returned (runtime, session, vision steps, view URL), but omits any hint about permissions, side effects, or when a session must exist before calling.

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?

A single well-formed sentence that front-loads the most important outputs (runtime and session state) before the ancillary URL detail. No wasted words.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description properly enumerates the return contents, which is what an agent most needs here. For a zero-parameter, side-effect-free status probe it is essentially complete.

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 takes zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete and there is nothing for the description to compensate for. Baseline 4 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Report') and enumerates exactly what is reported: runtime state, session presence, remaining vision steps, and the live view URL. This clearly contrasts with the action-oriented siblings (browser_open, browser_click, etc.), though it does not name a sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the mention of the live view URL 'to hand to a human' hints at one use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or routing against the other browser_* tools.

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