chrome_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely states 'Check Chrome connection status' without revealing side effects, read-only nature, or what happens if the connection is lost. It provides no additional context about the tool's behavior beyond the literal action.

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, concise sentence that immediately communicates the tool's purpose. There is no filler or redundant content. For a trivial status-check tool, this is appropriately sized and front-loaded.

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 (no parameters, no output schema), the description is mostly adequate but still lacks a clear indication of what the output represents. It would benefit from stating whether it returns a boolean, status string, or error. Since the output schema is absent, the description should carry more informational weight, but it does not fully do so.

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 input schema is an empty object. The baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4, as there is nothing to explain. The description does not mislead or add unnecessary parameter information, so this score 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 'Check Chrome connection status' clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like chrome_connect and chrome_disconnect by focusing on the status check rather than establishing or terminating a connection. However, it does not elaborate on what status information is returned, which could leave some ambiguity.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., after connecting) or scenarios where it would be appropriate to use a different tool. This leaves the agent to infer the context on its own.

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