server_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Health check' does convey a read-only, non-destructive diagnostic intent, which is the most important trait. However, it does not disclose return format, failure behavior (e.g., unreachable server or unlaunched browser), or whether the call is synchronous.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with the key phrase 'Health check' leading. Every word earns its place, with no filler, redundancy, or structural waste.

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?

Adequate for a simple zero-parameter diagnostic, but the absence of an output schema and annotations leaves the return shape and edge-case behavior (browser not running, server unreachable) undisclosed. It also offers no hint about when it should be preferred over sibling status tools.

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 nothing for the description to document beyond the schema. Per the 0-param baseline, the schema fully covers this dimension and the description owes no parameter compensation.

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 states a clear verb-resource combination ('Health check', 'verify') with a defined scope covering server status, browser status, and active tabs. This distinguishes it from the many action-oriented siblings (navigate, click, fill). It is slightly ambiguous about what a 'health check' operationally returns, but the diagnostic intent is clear.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus plausible alternatives such as page_stats, browser_recover, or describe_page, which could also report browser state. An agent receives no selection criteria or exclusion conditions.

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