browser_native_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool reports available capabilities and setup needs, which implies a read-only status operation. However, it does not explicitly state it has no side effects or is non-destructive, though 'Report' strongly suggests a safe inspection. This is adequate but could be more explicit.

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 concise sentences: the first states the tool's function and the second gives usage guidance. Information is front-loaded with the capability list, and every word adds value. No filler or 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?

The description explains what the tool reports and when to use it, but does not describe the output format or provide details on how the report is returned (e.g., a list, a boolean per capability). For a status tool, the core use case is covered, but a bit more on the expected response would improve completeness. However, given the tool's simplicity and the lack of an output schema, this is acceptable.

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 coverage is 100% (empty properties). The description adds no parameter-specific details, but none are needed. With no parameters, a baseline of 4 is appropriate, as the description correctly focuses on behavior and usage rather than parameter meaning.

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 specific verb ('Report') and resource ('OS-level input capabilities'), listing the exact capabilities (trusted keystrokes, native-dialog control, raw clicks). It also explicitly differentiates itself from the browser_os_* and browser_native_dialog tools by positioning itself as a prerequisite check, 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?

It explicitly instructs the agent to 'Check this before relying on the browser_os_* / browser_native_dialog tools,' providing a clear when-to-use condition. This also implies when not to use it (when not relying on those tools), giving the agent direct guidance on selecting this tool versus its siblings.

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