browser_health

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses the contents of the response (bridge version, ports, keep-alive list, pool state, tags, policy, sessions dir, audit/log sizes), which tells the agent this is a read-only inspection call with no arguments. It stops short of stating read-only/side-effect semantics, cost, or output format explicitly.

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?

One compact sentence with the subject front-loaded ('Extended health/status') and the payload items listed after the colon. No filler or repetition, though the fragment-without-verb style is terse to the point of being telegraphic.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the return-shape burden, and it does list the eight reported categories. Format details (structure, nesting of the health object) are absent, but for a zero-parameter diagnostic tool this is close to sufficient.

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 nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The enumerated fields describe the return payload rather than inputs, which is harmless.

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?

Names a specific resource (bridge health/status) and enumerates the concrete dimensions it reports (version, ports, pool state, policy, sessions dir, log sizes). The word 'Extended' implicitly contrasts it with the sibling browser_status, but it never states that relationship explicitly, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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?

No when-to-use statement and no exclusions. The agent must infer that this is the diagnostic/deep-status call and that browser_status is the lighter alternative; nothing in the text routes it between the two.

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