browser_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates that this is a read-only status snapshot and adds non-obvious detail about live MCP/Chromium memory readings and budgets. It does not describe the exact response format or failure behavior, but it is reasonably transparent for a status getter.

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 two compact sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds a version note that provides genuinely useful behavioral context about resource readings.

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 parameterless status tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the key bases: purpose, included data, and practical rationale. It does not define the return shape, but that is a minor gap for this simple getter.

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 and the schema coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter semantics burden on the description. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, this dimension is well satisfied.

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 names a specific operation, 'Get browser and page status', and enumerates its contents: opened tabs, connection info, and live resource readings. This clearly distinguishes it from navigation and interaction siblings, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from browser_diagnose or browser_listTabs, which could partially overlap.

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 phrase 'so the agent sees pressure before Android does' implies the tool is useful for proactive resource monitoring, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not name alternatives such as browser_diagnose or browser_listTabs or explain when one should be preferred.

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