chrome_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and discloses that the call is a non-invasive status check ('never inspects page content') and what two states it reports. However, it says nothing about whether the check blocks/waits, its latency, or side effects, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps for a no-annotation tool.

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 sentences with zero filler. The core purpose is front-loaded and the behavioral caveat follows immediately, making it easy to scan and act on.

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?

For a parameterless status tool with no output schema, the description adequately states what is checked. It could go slightly further by indicating what an agent should do on a negative result (e.g., pairing via chrome_pair), which is the only notable omission.

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 baseline of 4 applies and there is nothing further for the description to clarify. No parameter semantics are required or missing.

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 uses a specific verb ('Report') and precisely names the resource: whether the Chrome Native Messaging host is connected and whether a top-level document is paired. This clearly distinguishes it from content-reading siblings like chrome_read and control siblings like chrome_focus or chrome_activate.

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 gives an explicit trigger ('Call this before Chrome semantic work') and a distinguishing negative scope ('it never inspects page content'), which tells the agent when not to rely on it for content. It stops short of naming the specific alternative (e.g., chrome_pair) for remediating a disconnected state, so not a full 5.

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