chatgpt_browser_lifecycle

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 discloses the key lifecycle behavior: the browser stays open after MCP calls and subsequent calls take over without re-entry. This is valuable context beyond the tool name, though it does not detail what the status output contains or whether any side effects exist beyond 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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences. It front-loads the primary purpose (reading status) and immediately follows with the essential behavioral trait. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 no-parameter, no-output-schema status tool, the description provides adequate context. It explains the tool's purpose and the critical lifecycle behavior that impacts subsequent calls. While it could mention possible status values or return format, the absence of an output schema lowers the burden, and the description is sufficiently complete for its simplicity.

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 reflects this with an empty properties object. Per the baseline for 0-param tools, the description need not explain parameters. The description adds no parameter information, but none is required, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 reads the resident status of the dedicated ChatGPT browser, using the specific verb '读取' (read) with a defined resource. It adds useful context about browser persistence after MCP calls, which distinguishes it from a generic status check, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tool 'chatgpt_status'.

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 when to use this tool—to check the browser's resident state and understand that subsequent calls will directly take over without re-entering the site. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like 'chatgpt_status' or provide usage scenarios, so guidance is only implied.

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