chrome_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The word 'Report' implies a read-only operation and the sentence does indicate the kind of information returned, but it does not explicitly state side-effect freedom, backend interaction, or how capabilities are determined.

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?

A single well-structured sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded, followed by concrete output details. Every phrase adds useful content and there is 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?

For a no-parameter status tool, the description covers the major expected output categories: paired profiles, profile naming, and disabled capability flags. It does not describe the return structure or formatting, but the low complexity and absent output schema make the description largely sufficient.

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 has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is nothing meaningful for the description to add. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, this is handled appropriately without parameter documentation.

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 uses the verb 'Report' with a specific resource, 'backend/session status', then enumerates what is included: paired browser profiles, how they were named, and capability flags. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling status/auth/profile tools.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool relative to similarly named siblings such as auth_check or task_status, and no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned. The only implication is that it provides status information, which is too weak to route an agent correctly.

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