fx_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the information scope (connection, session, current page, navigator.webdriver flag) but does not state whether the call is read-only, whether it can reset or establish a session, or what happens when the connection is lost.

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 one short, front-loaded phrase that immediately communicates the tool's subject ('Health') and then lists the specific fields. There is no wasted text, and for a parameterless tool this level of brevity is warranted.

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?

Because there is no output schema, the description must convey what the tool returns. It names the relevant categories, but does not state the return format, whether all categories are always present, or what values look like (booleans, strings, objects). This is adequate for a simple status call but leaves some ambiguity.

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 the schema already exhaustively documents the input surface. The description's listed status categories are not parameter documentation but still provide useful context about the tool's behavior. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for a 0-parameter tool.

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 names the tool's resource—health/status—and specifies the exact status categories: connection, session, current page, and navigator.webdriver flag. It is clear enough to distinguish from sibling tools, though it lacks an explicit verb and does not compare itself to any sibling.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use fx_status versus alternatives. The description does not state whether to use it before other commands, for diagnostics, or as a health check, leaving the agent to infer its role from the name and siblings.

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