Browser status

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

The description names the specific output field `browser_reachable` and the `hint` field, giving the agent concrete knowledge of what to expect. Annotations (readOnlyHint=true) already signal this is a safe read operation. The description adds value by explaining what the output means behaviorally (telling the agent what to do when unreachable), going beyond the annotation safety profile.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose first, followed by actionable diagnostics. No wasted words. Slight deduction could be argued for not being maximally compact, but the conditional instruction earns its place since it directly guides agent behavior. Efficient and purposeful.

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?

This is a simple, parameterless diagnostic tool with an output schema present, so the description doesn't need to explain return values extensively. The description covers the purpose, when to use it, and the conditional action to take based on the result. For a tool of this complexity, this is complete — nothing meaningful is missing.

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 0 parameters, so there is no parameter meaning to convey — the schema itself documents this fully (100% coverage by definition since there are no params). The task is parameter-free, so a baseline of 4-5 applies, and the description fully compensates by explaining what the tool checks and what its output communicates.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: checking whether Groundhog can reach the stealth browser. It uses a specific verb ('check') with a clear resource ('reach the stealth browser') and includes a diagnostic framing, distinguishing it from sibling tools (read_url, research, search) which are substantive data-gathering operations rather than setup diagnostics.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call this to diagnose setup before fetching.' It also provides conditional follow-up instructions: if `browser_reachable` is false, follow `hint` to start the browser, then retry. This is directly actionable and tells the agent exactly the workflow to follow.

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