browser_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Check' implies a read-only, non-mutating probe and it enumerates the observed state (status, tabs, CDP connection), but it never states whether it errors when no browser is launched, whether it is safe to call repeatedly, or whether it can block.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; every word contributes. It is arguably terse for a tool with no annotations, but there is no wasted structure.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and with zero parameters there is nothing to document on the input side. The only shortfall is the missing note on the precondition that a browser session must exist.

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 baseline is 4. The description correctly adds nothing about inputs because there are none, and the empty schema leaves no ambiguity to resolve.

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 gives a specific verb ('Check') and names three concrete resources: browser status, active tabs, and CDP connection state. It is clear what the tool reports, but it does not differentiate itself from the overlapping sibling browser_tabs, which also concerns tabs.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus alternatives such as browser_tabs or browser_launch, nor any prerequisite (e.g., whether a browser must already be running). Usage is only tautologically implied by the word 'Check'.

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