browser_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: 'It starts nothing' and 'a browser that is not open, or gone, is answered with the sentence that says which.' This tells the agent the call is side-effect-free and how missing state is reported.

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 compact and front-loaded with a clear one-line summary. The additional sentences about the seed and the closed-browser behavior each add useful context without repetition. It is somewhat poetic but remains efficient.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema and read-only annotations, the description provides enough operational context: what the status contains, when to call it, and what happens if no browser is open. The only minor gap is not detailing the 'exit' or 'profile' semantics, but the output schema can carry that.

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 100%, and the schema already explains the single optional parameter: 'Defaults to `main`; `support` is the helper beside it.' The tool description does not add much about parameter semantics, but with full schema coverage the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies what the tool reports: 'the identity, the exit, the profile and the page' of the current browser, and frames it as a status query. It is distinguishable from the action-oriented siblings like browser_open or browser_navigate, though it does not explicitly name a sibling to contrast 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?

The description explicitly states 'Ask whenever you need to know which person the browser currently is, or from where its traffic leaves,' giving clear when-to-use guidance. It also explains the relationship to browser_open via the seed concept. It does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool, but the guidance is sufficient for an agent.

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