debug_websocket_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose that this is a read-only status check that does not change browser state or reconnect anything. It does not describe error behavior or authentication needs, but for a zero-parameter debug status tool the main behavioral trait is clearly disclosed.

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 three short sentences with no wasted language. The core purpose and safety guarantee are front-loaded, followed by the alternative tool guidance.

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 the low complexity, zero parameters, and existing output schema, the description is complete enough for an agent to call this tool correctly. It covers purpose, usage context, behavioral safety, and the relevant sibling alternative.

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 are no parameter semantics to explain, and the baseline for this case is 4. The schema is fully described and the absence of parameters is unambiguous.

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 and resource: reading the server's connected Firefox profile IDs and names. It also distinguishes this from the sibling tool profiles_list, which is used for windows/tabs and target discovery.

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 says when to use this tool: for a quick connection check, including when no extension is connected. It also names the alternative profiles_list and the context in which that alternative should be used.

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