Check the local ClassDojo browser adapter

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true and openWorldHint: true, and the description adds 'without writing data' which aligns with readOnlyHint. The description goes beyond the annotations by specifying exactly what is checked (browser connection, login visibility, available classes). This adds useful behavioral context without contradicting the annotations.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the main verb 'Checks' and specifies exactly what is checked. There is no fluff, redundancy, or unnecessary detail. Every word earns its place.

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 simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, read-only annotations), the description is sufficient. It clearly states the tool's scope and intent. An agent can confidently invoke this tool to diagnose the local environment without ambiguity. There is no missing information that would prevent correct usage.

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 coverage is 100% (no properties to describe). Per the baseline for tools with no parameters, a score of 4 is appropriate. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it does not introduce any misleading information.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Checks the local browser connection, login visibility, and available classes without writing data.' This uses specific verbs and resources, and implicitly distinguishes it from sibling tools like classdojo_list_classes or classdojo_get_ui_state by focusing on a diagnostic health check. The purpose is unambiguous and immediately actionable.

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 implies this tool is for verifying the local environment (browser connection, login state, class availability) before using other tools, but it does not explicitly say when to use it versus siblings like classdojo_get_ui_state or classdojo_list_classes. There is no mention of alternatives or exclusions, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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