check_browser_health

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions checking health and providing recovery suggestions, but doesn't specify what constitutes 'health status' (e.g., connectivity, errors, performance), what recovery suggestions entail, or whether this is a read-only operation. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior and 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 a single, efficient sentence that clearly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and outcome, making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool.

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 has an output schema (which should cover return values), the description's main job is to clarify purpose and usage. It does a decent job on purpose but lacks usage guidelines and parameter details. For a health-check tool with no annotations, it's minimally adequate but leaves gaps in behavioral context and parameter understanding.

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 input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the tool description provides no information about parameters. It doesn't explain what 'session_id' represents, how to obtain it, or its format. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving the parameter's meaning unclear.

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: 'Check the health status of a browser session and provide recovery suggestions'. It specifies the verb ('check'), resource ('browser session'), and outcome ('provide recovery suggestions'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_browser_status' or 'get_page_state', which might also provide status information.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites, timing, or how it differs from sibling tools such as 'get_browser_status' or 'get_page_state', which could overlap in functionality. Without this context, users must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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