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. 'Check' implies read-only behavior, but the description does not explicitly confirm no side effects, whether it launches or connects to a browser, or what happens when no browser instance exists. It names output subjects but leaves key behavioral traits unstated.

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 sentence with no filler, front-loading the verb and object. Every phrase earns its place by naming distinct informational targets.

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-parameter status tool, the description covers the core purpose and likely return areas. However, there is no output schema, and the description does not specify the return format, field structure, or error behavior, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.

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 the empty schema makes parameter semantics trivial. The description still adds value by indicating what the status call will report: active tabs and persistent profile path.

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 uses a specific verb ('check') and names three concrete targets: browser instance status, active tabs, and persistent profile path. This clearly distinguishes it from navigation, clicking, and typing siblings, though it does not explicitly name a sibling for comparison.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings. It does not state whether it should be called before navigation, whether it requires an already-open browser, or what conditions make it the right choice. Usage must be inferred from the name and description.

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