Browser status

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

The description aligns with the annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false) and adds a small behavioral detail: it reports the active page, not just a running flag. However, it does not disclose what happens if the browser is not running, what 'active page' means in practice, or whether the tool returns a simple boolean, a URL, or both. With annotations already signaling safety, the description adds only modest context.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word earns its place: it names the action, the target resource, and the exact two pieces of information reported.

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 zero-parameter read-only status tool with no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It clearly states what the tool reports, and no additional input or prerequisite detail is needed. The absence of an output schema is compensated by specifying that the tool reports both browser-running state and active page.

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 contains no properties, so the description does not need to explain parameter meaning. The baseline for a parameterless tool is 4, and the description correctly focuses on behavior rather than inputs.

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 uses a specific verb ('Report') and a clear resource ('whether the browser is running and which page is active'), making the tool's purpose immediately obvious. It is also clearly differentiated from sibling tools like haden_open, haden_read, haden_interact, and haden_image, which describe actions rather than state inspection.

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?

There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any when-not-to-use conditions. The context is implied by the name and siblings, but the description does not state that this should be used before acting on the browser or how it relates to the other browser tools.

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