Connection status

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

The description adds the explicit behavioral guarantee 'Never touches the page,' which is valuable beyond the annotations. It also clarifies that it reports in-flight jobs and the running tool, giving the agent a clear mental model of what the call observes without side effects.

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 with no fluff. The primary action and scope are front-loaded, and the safety note is appended efficiently. Every word contributes meaning.

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 that there are no parameters, rich annotations, an output schema, and a precise enumeration of reported state, the description is complete. An agent can confidently invoke this tool to assess connection, login, project, and job status without additional context.

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, so there is no parameter burden for the description to carry. The baseline of 4 applies, and the description appropriately focuses on behavior and output content rather than parameter details.

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 a specific verb ('Report') and names exact resources: browser connection, login state, current Flow project/scene, running tool, and in-flight jobs. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like flow_screenshot or flow_connect by stating what status information it provides.

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 implies when to use the tool: whenever an agent needs an overview of connection, login, project, and job state. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving some inference to the agent.

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