browser.readiness_check

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds value beyond these by detailing what checks are performed (encryption, operator identity, etc.) and the nature of return values (pass/warn/fail). No contradictions with annotations.

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, each earning its place: first sentence states purpose and scope, second sentence adds a critical usage hint. No redundant or vague language.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description explains return values (pass/warn/fail) and lists all categories checked. This is comprehensive for a straightforward check tool, though it could specify the exact output format (e.g., object vs string).

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 0% (the schema has a single parameter with enum but no description). The description compensates by clarifying the mode parameter's usage with the hint 'Pass mode='confidential' for stricter checks', providing semantic meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 clearly states it runs a deployment readiness check, lists specific items checked (encryption, operator identity, etc.), and mentions the mode parameter. This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from all sibling tools, which focus on browser session management and have no readiness check functionality.

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 a direct statement of when to use the tool (run a deployment readiness check) and a hint about using mode='confidential' for stricter checks. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or suggest alternative tools, which is acceptable given no siblings perform similar checks.

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