browser_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'State of the controlled browser' implies a read-only query, but the description never explicitly states that it does not modify the browser, nor does it disclose side effects, permissions, or limitations. The term 'interaction' is also ambiguous and does not clarify actual behavior.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with a clear subject and a colon-delimited list of contents. Every word earns its place, and there is no filler or 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?

For a no-parameter status getter, the description covers the main elements of the returned state: open/closed, engine, URL, and interaction. Since there is no output schema, it would benefit from clarifying what 'interaction' means and whether the response includes more fields, but overall it is reasonably complete for a simple status tool.

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 parameter documentation burden on the description. The baseline of 4 applies here, and the description appropriately focuses on what the state reports rather than on parameter details.

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 identifies the resource as the state of the controlled browser and enumerates its contents: open/closed, engine, URL, and interaction. It lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'gets,' but the noun-phrase form is unambiguous and easy to distinguish from action-oriented siblings like browser_open and browser_eval.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and it mentions no exclusions or prerequisites. There is an implicit sense that one would use it to check browser state, but the description does not state that or contrast it with related tools such as browser_open, browser_close, or tab_list.

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