browser_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It merely says 'return status' but does not clarify what status includes, whether it has side effects, or what the response format is. For a read-only tool this is under-specified; the agent cannot predict the output or side effects.

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 one short sentence with no filler. It is maximally concise and front-loaded with the action. Every word earns its place, making it excellent in structure.

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 lack of an output schema and annotations, the description must define what 'status' means. It does not—leaving the agent unsure of the return type, possible values, or even whether the operation could fail. For such a simple tool this is a notable gap, so completeness is low.

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 already documents that clearly. Per the rubric, 0 params earns a baseline of 4. The description does not need to elaborate on parameters since there are none, so this is adequate.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Return current browser status.' It names the specific operation, and among siblings there is no direct competitor for status checking, so it is distinguishable. However, 'status' is ambiguous—an agent cannot know whether it means browser liveness, current page, or connection state, which keeps it from a 5.

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 implicitly suggests using it when you need browser status, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives or when not to use it. Since there is no obvious sibling overlapping in function, the context is somewhat implied, but explicit guidance is absent.

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