check_stealth

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 covered. The description adds the useful framing that it inspects the 'live session' (i.e., current runtime state, not a static profile), but says nothing about prerequisites such as an open tab or whether values reflect the last navigation.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the parenthetical examples do real work by naming the signals. The trailing ellipsis leaves the enumeration open-ended, which is slightly loose but far better than padding.

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?

An output schema exists and a zero-parameter surface is trivial, so the description does not need to explain return values. The only real gap is the precondition (an active browser session/tab), which an agent must guess before calling.

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 there is nothing to disambiguate and the baseline is 4. The description correctly signals a parameterless call by not implying any input is needed.

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 resource ('automation-detection signals of the live session') and enumerates the concrete signals (webdriver flag, UA, WebGL, plugins), so the agent knows exactly what is returned. It does not distinguish itself from the nearby sibling fingerprint_info, which plausibly overlaps, so it stops short of 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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this verifies stealth before/while scraping, but the description never says when to run it, whether a page must be loaded first, or that fingerprint_info is the alternative for static profile data. No exclusions or alternatives are named.

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