browser_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly states what the tool reports and that it differentiates two failure modes. It does not describe output format or side effects, but for a zero-parameter status tool this is reasonably transparent.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed immediately by practical usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place; there is no filler.

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 no-parameter, no-output-schema diagnostic tool, the description is complete: it states what is reported, when to call it, and why the diagnostic distinction matters. Nothing needed for selecting or invoking the tool is missing.

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 input schema is empty with zero parametersainer, and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter details because none exist, which 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 names a specific verb ('Report') and a precise set of resources: bridge + extension connection state and the currently targeted tab. It also distinguishes this tool from navigation, observation, action, and assertion siblings by focusing purely on status/diagnostics.

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 gives explicit situational guidance: 'Call this first if anything behaves unexpectedly.' It also explains the diagnostic value by distinguishing 'no extension connected' from 'no tab attached.' It does not name alternative tools or when-not conditions, so it stops short of a 5.

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