firefox_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It conveys a read-only operation via the verb 'Report' and specifies the exact information returned, which implicitly signals no side effects. It does not detail potential authentication or environment constraints, but for a status tool this is adequate.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and appends the Firefox-only caveat. 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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the essential behavior and scope. It could mention the output format, but since the tool is a straightforward status report and the description lists what it reports, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description adds no parameter-specific details (none are needed), and the empty schema requires no compensation.

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 ('Report') and a specific resource (Firefox status), and enumerates the exact data points: running status, profile, port, viewport, and session tabs. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the Chrome integration, making it clearly unique among siblings.

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 clearly states this is Firefox-only and that the Chrome integration has no equivalent, which implies when to use it (when Firefox-specific status is needed) and when not to (Chrome contexts). It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the Firefox vs. Chrome distinction is a clear usage pointer.

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