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 does well: it establishes this is a pure read operation and adds a genuinely useful caveat that an unreachable result does not prove the browser process exited. It does not disclose the shape of the returned handles or what states 'reachability' can take.

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?

Three short sentences, zero waste, with the capability statement front-loaded before the exclusions and the caveat. Nothing is repeated from the schema or title.

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 zero-argument status tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what is read and a key misinterpretation risk. It leaves the return payload (fields, handle format, reachability enum values) undescribed, which an agent calling it cold would benefit from knowing.

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 is no parameter semantics to document and the baseline of 4 applies. The description's mention of handles and URL/title is output-related rather than parameter-related.

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 (Read) and a concrete resource set (session reachability, handles, current window URL/title), which lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like browser_start, browser_sessions, and browser_switch_window. The negative list further sharpens the boundary.

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?

Explicitly excludes start/restart/frame-switching/dialog-acceptance, which routes the agent toward browser_start, browser_frame, and browser_alert instead. It stops short of naming those alternatives directly, so the routing is inferential rather than stated.

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