browser.readiness_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns 'pass/warn/fail' for a list of items, but does not mention side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether the state is modified. This is adequate but not thorough.

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 purpose and followed by a key usage hint. Every word earns its place; no redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the input and general outcome. However, it lacks specifics on response format (e.g., whether it returns a single pass/fail or per-category results) and does not explain what 'stricter checks' means. For a tool with no output schema, more detail would improve completeness.

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 single parameter 'mode' has an enum with default in the schema. The description explains that 'confidential' applies stricter checks, adding meaning beyond the schema. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description compensates well for this one parameter.

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 the verb 'Run' and the resource 'deployment readiness check', listing specific checks (encryption, operator identity, etc.). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools which are browser control actions, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. It only implies usage via the mode parameter ('Pass mode='confidential' for stricter checks'), but lacks context on prerequisites or post-conditions.

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