browser_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; 'Report' signals a read-only diagnostic operation and the sentence spells out the three things it returns (backend, capabilities, tab count). It does not explicitly state 'does not modify browser state', but the report semantics make side effects unlikely, and an output schema exists for return details.

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 efficient, front-loaded sentence covers the operation and its outputs with no filler or repetition.

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?

For a zero-parameter diagnostic tool with an output schema available, the description plausibly covers everything needed to call it. It does not explain the meaning of 'what it can do' in detail, but that detail belongs to the output schema, so the gap is minor.

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 zero parameters, so the parameter burden is minimal; per the baseline for 0 params, no parameter-level documentation is needed.

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 names a concrete action (report) and resource (backend connection, capabilities, tab count), making the tool's purpose clear. It stops short of a 5 because it does not explicitly contrast with siblings such as list_tabs, which overlap on the tab-count aspect.

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?

Usage context is implied by the status-reporting wording: call it to check the active backend, its capabilities, or the number of tabs. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer it over list_tabs or when its capabilities report is relevant, so the agent must infer the trigger.

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