browser_status

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the tool is read-only, free, opens no browser, loads no page, calls no model, and costs nothing. It also discloses the kind of state it inspects, which operations are blocked, and that it reports on readiness rather than site-specific behavior, giving the agent a complete operational picture.

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 main point is front-loaded in the first sentence, and every subsequent clause adds distinct information about safety, prerequisites, or limitations. Though longer than typical descriptions, the density is high and there is no filler.

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?

The description covers when to call, what it checks, what it avoids doing, and what it does not report. Given that an output schema exists and there are no parameters, nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

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 takes zero parameters, so the schema fully defines the call shape and the baseline is 4. The description reinforces that no arguments are needed by describing the tool as a global status check rather than a parameterized query.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: it reports whether a browser run can work at all. It enumerates concrete outputs (API key presence and provenance, active text model, daemon and Chrome state, blocked operations) and explicitly distinguishes itself from the siblings by noting it opens no browser, loads no page, and calls no model.

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 gives explicit trigger conditions: call it when browser_task or browser_read fails, before the first run of a session, or when the user asks whether the browser agent is ready. It also sets an exclusion boundary by stating it says nothing about any particular website, which prevents misuse.

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