chrome_check_page

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

With no annotations, description carries full burden; it discloses performance expectation (<500ms), absence of screenshot, and the specific state fields returned. This is meaningful behavioral detail for a read-only health-check, though it does not describe failure behavior or whether the check waits for page load completion.

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 tightly written sentences: first states purpose and key differentiator, second lists return fields and performance guarantee. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description lists all expected return values, which is sufficient for a simple health-check tool. It omits potential nuances like whether the page must be fully loaded or how 'visible errors' are determined, but the overall context is clear for autonomous agents.

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?

Tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is trivially 100%; description correctly implies no inputs are needed. Baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and no additional parameter semantics are required.

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?

Description clearly states it performs a quick page state check without screenshot, and enumerates specific return data (URL, title, load state, visible errors, form count, interactive elements count). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like chrome_screenshot, chrome_get_current_url, and chrome_get_title by combining state signals into a fast health-check.

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?

Explicitly frames usage as a fast health-check for autonomous agents and notes it is without screenshot, giving clear context. It does not name alternative tools or state when not to use, but the positioning against screenshot-based checks is evident.

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