ruyi_browser_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses what information is returned (alive, URL, counts), making the output behavior transparent. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only, side-effect-free operation, which could be assumed from 'status' but is not stated.

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 that lists all key output fields without any filler. Every word is useful and the structure is highly efficient.

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?

For a parameterless status tool with no output schema, the description fully specifies the return contents. It is complete and self-contained for an agent to understand what information will be retrieved.

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 confirms this. The description adds no parameter detail, but with no parameters to document, the baseline score of 4 applies.

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 'Get browser current status' and enumerates the specific fields returned (alive, current URL, page count, breakpoints, preload script count). This is a specific verb+resource and distinguishes from sibling tools like list_pages or list_breakpoints.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given its status-checking nature, it implied but not explicitly stated that it's a general health/state inspection tool without exclusions or preconditions.

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