browser_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose the two things reported back: connection state and loaded extension version. It stops short of saying what a failed/disconnected result looks like or whether it errors versus returns a status, but it is a zero-parameter read-only probe with little hidden risk.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the primary purpose front-loaded and the usage trigger immediately after. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 trivial zero-arg diagnostic with no output schema, the description covers both what it checks and when to reach for it. The only gap is the shape of a negative result (disconnected bridge), which matters when the stated use case is triaging failures.

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 no parameters at all, which is the baseline-4 case. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed by framing it as a simple status check.

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 object: checks whether the Chrome bridge is connected and which extension version is loaded. This is clearly distinguishable from all the action-oriented browser_* siblings, which manipulate tabs, DOM, or screenshots.

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?

"Use this first when another browser tool fails" gives an explicit trigger condition, which is unusually actionable for a diagnostic tool. It doesn't state when not to use it (e.g. don't poll it routinely), but the primary routing guidance is present.

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