browser_status

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully reveals the scope of the probe (CDP port, process liveness, in-process config), which implies a non-mutating health check, but it never states that it is read-only/side-effect-free, nor what the result looks like or what to do when the channel is unavailable.

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 short sentence with the core purpose front-loaded and the sub-checks listed after a colon. No filler, no redundancy, and the structure mirrors how an agent would scan it.

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?

With no output schema, the description stays silent on the return shape even though the usefulness of a status tool hinges on interpreting a positive versus negative result. It is adequate for a zero-parameter probe, but an agent still lacks guidance on remediation and on how to read the outcome.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is no parameter meaning the description could add or omit. Nothing in the description conflicts with the empty schema.

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 names a specific verb (检查 / check) and a specific resource (浏览器通道 / browser channel availability), then enumerates the three things inspected: CDP port, whether the browser process is running, and in-process configuration. That is enough for an agent to distinguish this diagnostic from the action-oriented siblings (web_open, web_click, web_type), although it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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 when-to-use guidance: nothing says to call this before attempting web_open, or to call it after a connection failure, and no sibling is named as an alternative. The diagnostic intent is only implied by the word 检查 and the enumerated checks, leaving the agent to infer the trigger conditions.

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