status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and a closed-world scope, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds that the call surfaces live operational state (running jobs, open tabs, last results), which hints it is a snapshot read with no side effects, but it does not say whether the call blocks, whether it fails when disconnected, or how stale the data is.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the single most important question an agent would ask, followed by a compact field list. No filler and nothing to trim.

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?

With an output schema present and zero parameters, the description does not need to explain return values, and the rich annotations cover safety. What remains missing is only the usage context (when to reach for this instead of check_accounts or history), which is a minor gap for such a simple diagnostic tool.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies for a no-arg 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 frames the tool as a connectivity/diagnostic check ('Is the Chrome extension connected?') and enumerates the payload (versions, running jobs, open tabs, last results), which is specific enough to distinguish it from publish/publish_batch. It lacks an explicit verb like 'returns status of', but the question form plus the field list makes the purpose unmistakable.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus siblings. A natural use case — verifying the extension/server is alive before publishing, or diagnosing a failed publish — is only inferable, and the relationship to check_accounts (also a 'check' tool) is left entirely unaddressed.

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