browser_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that it returns a JSON string and lists the two pieces of information it returns, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, nor does it mention any permissions or prerequisites. For a status-checking tool, this is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 concise and well-structured, with a brief overview and bullet points listing the returned information. The 'Returns:' line is slightly redundant with the bullet list, but the overall structure is clear and front-loaded. It does not waste words, though it could be slightly tighter.

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?

The tool has an output schema (indicated by 'Has output schema: true'), so the description does not need to detail the return format beyond what the schema provides. It covers the essential information about the status. However, it lacks a clear differentiation from the sibling 'session_browser_status', which could lead to incorrect tool selection. For a simple status check, this is mostly complete but not fully contextual.

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 there is no need for parameter explanations. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and the description does not attempt to add irrelevant parameter information, so it meets this baseline.

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 states the tool's purpose: checking browser persistence status and returning specific information. It uses a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('browser persistence status'). However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'session_browser_status', which likely serves a similar or overlapping function. A clear purpose but lacking sibling differentiation.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'session_browser_status' or 'session_status'. The description only explains what the tool does, not under what conditions it should be selected. For a tool with multiple closely related siblings, this is a significant gap.

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