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. It clearly states what information is reported, and the content strongly implies a read-only status check with no side effects. However, it does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, nor does it describe any potential prerequisites or error conditions. For a status tool this is acceptable but not fully transparent.

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, front-loaded sentence that lists all key aspects without redundancy. Every word contributes to the functional purpose, and it is highly 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?

For a tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential information an agent needs: what is reported (connection status, method, targets, pages). It could go into more detail about the exact format of the report, but given the low complexity, the description is sufficiently complete for correct usage.

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, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). According to the rubric, this warrants a baseline of 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and no additional parameter semantics are required.

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 clearly identifies the resource ('controlled browser') and the exact information delivered (connection status, connection method, instrumented targets, and bridge-connected pages). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like launch_browser or attach_browser, which perform actions rather than report state.

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 makes the usage context clear: it is a status query about the browser bridge. It implies when to use it (before or after connection operations) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. However, given that no sibling tool has a similar reporting function, the usage scenario is unambiguous enough.

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