Daemon status

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

The description adds the specifics of what the tool shows (status, idle timeout, managed browsers) beyond the annotation's readOnlyHint. No contradictions. It is sufficient for a simple read operation.

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, concise sentence that conveys all necessary information without any wasted words. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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 zero parameters, a readOnly annotation, and no output schema, the description is complete. It tells the agent exactly what the tool outputs (status, idle timeout, managed browsers). No gaps.

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?

There are no parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter meaning; the baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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 states the tool shows the dev-browser daemon status, idle timeout, and managed browsers. It uses a specific verb ('Show') and resource, and is distinct from sibling tools like dev_browser_run (start daemon) or dev_browser_browsers (list browsers).

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 the tool is for checking daemon status, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., before running other commands). No exclusions or recommendations are given.

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