Browser status

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

Annotations already guarantee readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds genuinely new traits: it functions while the browser is disconnected, and it surfaces the next-step prompt for the user. That is meaningful disclosure beyond the structured safety hints, though no return shape is given (and there is no output schema).

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, with the safety/next-step reassurance compactly trailing. No filler, though the parenthetical list slightly lengthens the opening clause.

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 status tool with no output schema, the description does the necessary work by enumerating what the response reports (connection, shared tabs/actions/expiry, control). Annotations cover the safety profile, so the definition is sufficient to call 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single optional browser_instance_id is already documented in-schema as needed only with multiple Firefox profiles. The description adds no parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb ("Report") plus a precise inventory of the resource state it returns: connection status, what the user shared (tabs, allowed actions, expiry), and who is in control. This is clearly distinct from siblings like browser_mutation_status or browser_contexts, though the description never names a sibling to differentiate explicitly.

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?

Tells the agent when it is usable ("Always safe to call, works while disconnected") and what it is for (finding "what to ask the user to do next"), which is strong contextual guidance. It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives for the cases where this tool is not the right choice.

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