get_browser_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds important context about admin-only access, which is valuable behavioral information not captured elsewhere. However, it doesn't describe what 'browser status' includes beyond 'instances and their status', nor does it mention response format, error conditions, or whether this is a read-only operation (though 'Get' implies reading).

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 appropriately concise with two clauses that each add value: the core functionality and the admin restriction. It's front-loaded with the main purpose. While efficient, the phrasing could be slightly more polished ('only admin can use this tool' could be 'Requires admin privileges.').

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 (0 parameters, output schema exists), the description provides adequate context. The admin restriction is crucial information, and the purpose is clearly stated. With an output schema handling return values, the description doesn't need to explain response format. For a status-checking tool, this is reasonably 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 has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the parameter situation. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description doesn't detract from this by incorrectly mentioning parameters.

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: 'Get current browser status, including all instances and their status.' This specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('browser status'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_instance_info' or 'get_page_state' by focusing on overall browser status rather than specific instances or page states. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'check_browser_health', which might have overlapping functionality.

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 clear context for usage with 'only admin can use this tool', establishing an important prerequisite. This helps the agent understand when NOT to use it (non-admin contexts). However, it doesn't explicitly mention when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'check_browser_health' or 'get_instance_info', nor does it provide exclusion criteria beyond admin requirements.

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