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 of behavioral disclosure. 'Zeigt' implies a non-mutating read operation, but the description does not explicitly address side effects, the effect of portal_id, or behavior when drivers are unavailable, limiting transparency.

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 no redundant words. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose while remaining compact.

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 the core functionality but omits parameter semantics and usage context. Since an output schema exists, return values are not needed, but the missing portal_id explanation is a significant gap for a simple status tool.

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 schema has 0% description coverage and the description does not mention portal_id at all. The optional parameter's meaning is entirely undocumented, forcing the agent to guess whether it filters by portal or has other effects.

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 'Zeigt verfügbare Browser-Treiber und den Sitzungsstatus der Portale' uses a specific verb ('Zeigt') and resource ('Browser-Treiber', 'Sitzungsstatus'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like portal_login or liste_portale. It states exactly what the tool reports, making the 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as portal_login or portal_sitzung_loeschen. It only states what it shows, without any context on suitable situations or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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