browser_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the tool starts nothing, that it reports the absence of a browser rather than failing, and that the returned seed is the reusable handle for browser_open. It does not cover error/permission behavior, but for a non-mutating status probe that is minor.

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 substantive facts are front-loaded in the first line and the browser-namespacing rule is placed last where it is easy to find. The prose is somewhat ornate ('the exit, the profile and the page'), which costs a little density, but no sentence is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be documented, yet the description still summarizes what comes back, and it also covers the no-browser-running case and the main/support isolation rule. Combined with a single optional parameter, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly; only lifecycle/permission edge cases are unaddressed.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate and it largely does: it states the default ('browser is main unless you say support') and the critical semantic that the two browsers 'share nothing.' It does not spell out the enum values as explicitly as it could, leaving the exact accepted strings to the schema.

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 opening line names the verb and resource concretely: reporting the current browser identity, exit, profile and page. It clearly differentiates from the mutation siblings like browser_open and browser_close by stating 'It starts nothing.' The only gap is that it never contrasts itself with browser_list, which an agent could plausibly confuse it with.

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 ('Ask whenever you need to know which person the browser currently is, or from where its traffic leaves') and a secondary use case (recording a seed for later reuse via browser_open). It does not state when *not* to use it or name an alternative for enumerating browsers, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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