pool_status

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

The description indicates a read-only operation via the verb 'view', but beyond that, it provides no additional behavioral context—no mention of output contents, side effects, or limitations. Since there are no annotations, the description carries the full burden but only delivers the bare minimum.

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 a single short phrase that is entirely front-loaded and contains no filler words, scoring high on conciseness.

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 simple status tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal but adequate for basic understanding; however, it doesn't specify what status information is returned or how it is presented, leaving some ambiguity.

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 input schema has zero parameters, giving a baseline score of 4. The description adds context about 'by agent' which hints at the scope of the result, but since there are no parameters, there is nothing more to explain.

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 uses the specific verb '查看' (view) with clear resource '浏览器池状态' (browser pool status) and scope '按 agent' (by agent), which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling pool_test tool.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives; there is no mention of specific scenarios, prerequisites, or comparisons with pool_test or other browser tools.

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