回報瀏覽器與連線狀態

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

No annotations provided, so description must carry behavioral burden. It discloses key behaviors: does not navigate, inspects current page, defaults to current page service, and lists what is reported. However, it doesn't state whether it requires an active browser session, what happens if the browser is not running, or output format. For a read-only diagnostic with no annotations, this is moderate but incomplete.

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?

Single sentence upfront stating the core purpose, followed by a clarifying sentence about not navigating. Efficient and front-loaded, though the initial sentence is long and lists many items, which could be structured better.

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 read-only diagnostic tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete: it enumerates what is reported and clarifies it does not navigate. However, it does not describe return structure, error conditions, or prerequisites (e.g., requires browser to be running). Given no output schema, more could be said about the response.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the provider parameter including enum values and default behavior. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 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?

States a clear diagnostic purpose: report browser running state, login status, private mode, profile dir, HTTP endpoint, CDP endpoint. Specific and enumerates the reported fields, but does not differentiate from siblings like webchat_models or webchat_warmup beyond the implicit read-only nature.

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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives mentioned. The description implies diagnostic use but doesn't say when to prefer this over other status-like tools (none exist by name) or how it relates to webchat_login/logout. No exclusions or prerequisites stated.

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