session_browser_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly conveys a read-only status check and specifies the JSON return format. It stops short of explicitly stating that the tool has no side effects, but 'Check current status' strongly implies it.

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, front-loaded with the main purpose, and organized with bullets for readability. The repeated 'Returns:' section adds a small amount of redundancy but does not materially hurt clarity.

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 no-argument status tool with an output schema present, the description provides enough information to invoke the tool correctly. It could be more complete by explaining when to prefer this tool over browser_status or session_status, but that gap is primarily a usage-guideline issue.

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 and 100% schema coverage, so there is no parameter ambiguity to resolve. The description reinforces that this is a status-only operation requiring no arguments.

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 a specific verb ('Check') and names a specific resource ('current session browser persistence status'), and the bullet list clarifies exactly what information is returned. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like browser_status or session_status, so it falls short of a 5.

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 states what the tool does but gives no guidance on when to use it versus closely related siblings such as browser_status, session_status, session_browser_keep_open, or session_browser_close. No exclusions or alternative-selection conditions are provided.

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