Slot status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the read-only nature implicitly ("Shows running") and describes the information returned, which is genuinely useful, but omits what happens when no slots are running, ordering, and any cost or rate considerations.

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?

Two tight sentences with the resource and returned fields front-loaded. The second sentence is short and useful for a multi-slot vs single-slot decision, though it is partly restating schema behavior, which keeps it from a clean 5.

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 2-parameter, annotation-free tool with no output schema, the description does well by enumerating the returned fields in place of a schema. It is still incomplete on lifecycle context (must a slot be launched first?) and empty-state behavior, which an agent needs to call and interpret it correctly.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents both slot and agent, including the port-to-slot conversion. The description's only addition is confirming that omitting slot returns all slots and supplying it narrows to one, which is a minor clarification rather than new semantics. Baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Shows running Chrome slots (1-30)") and enumerates the returned contents (tabs, opener, last action, one-line summary), which differentiates it from generic siblings like browser_tabs or browser_snapshot. It stops short of naming a sibling explicitly, so an agent must still infer which of the 30+ browser_* tools to prefer.

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?

"Pass slot for just that slot" is calling mechanics, not when-to-use guidance. Nothing says when an agent should call browser_status versus browser_tabs, browser_snapshot, or slot_inbox, nor does it state prerequisites such as whether a slot must already be running.

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