pod_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the pod's isolation model — a private browser window in a shared logged-in Chrome where other agents' pods and the user's own tabs are never visible — which is key scope context. It leaves the read-only nature implicit ('Show') and omits any auth or rate-limit details, but for a zero-parameter status tool this is largely sufficient.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and return, followed by essential isolation context. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (zero parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description supplies what is needed: the resource, the returned fields (label, owned tabs), and the visibility boundaries. A consuming agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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 are no parameter semantics to document; the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4. The description appropriately avoids discussing inputs and focuses on the output/status information.

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?

States a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('this agent's pod'), and specifies the payload ('its label and the tabs it owns'). It implicitly distinguishes from the generic 'tabs' sibling by scoping to owned tabs, but does not name or contrast with the closely related 'pod_window' sibling, 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 implies usage by describing what the tool returns, but gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance. No sibling like pod_window is referenced as an alternative, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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