browser_status

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'displays status' and does not mention whether it requires an active browser, whether it is side-effect-free, what the output contains, or any potential errors. This leaves the agent uncertain about the tool's operational behavior.

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 conveys the core purpose without waste. It is appropriately concise for a tool with no parameters.

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?

The description tells the agent what the tool does but omits details about the output structure or prerequisites. Since there is no output schema, the agent is left guessing what 'detailed status' includes. For a simple zero-param status tool, this is minimally viable but not complete.

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 schema fully covers parameter semantics. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but the baseline for zero-param tools is 4, and the description is not expected to clarify non-existent parameters.

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 clearly states the tool displays the detailed status of the CDP connection and open pages, using a specific verb ('Affiche') and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like browser_list and list_pages by focusing on CDP connection status rather than merely listing browsers or pages.

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 gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or alternatives. It implies usage for checking status but does not differentiate from similar tools like browser_list or list_pages, and offers no context on when this tool is preferred.

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