browser_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it usefully discloses the key side-effect boundary: this is a passive check that will not launch Chrome. It says nothing about cost, blocking behavior, or what a negative result means, but for a zero-arg status probe with an output schema those gaps are small.

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 fragments, the core question front-loaded, and the disambiguating caveat immediately after it. Nothing is wasted and nothing is buried.

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?

Return values are covered by the existing output schema and the tool is trivially simple, so the description is nearly complete. It could add one clause on when to reach for this versus browser_start, but nothing required to call it correctly is missing.

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, which is the baseline-4 case; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The absence of arguments is consistent with a pure status probe.

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 gives a specific check ('Is the ochi Chrome running?') against a named resource, and the parenthetical 'does not start it' directly separates it from the sibling browser_start. An agent can pick this tool without opening any schema.

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 exclusion 'does not start it' effectively routes the agent to browser_start when launching is needed, so the when-not case is explicit. However, browser_start is not named directly and no other usage context (e.g., call before fetch/snapshot) is given.

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