vibeside_browser_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does establish that this is a non-mutating inspection of four named facets. However, it never states that the operation is read-only, that checkCdp actively issues an HTTP probe (a side effect on the network), or what permissions/preconditions are needed.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that enumerates exactly what is reported with no filler, hedging, or restated title. Every clause carries information.

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 one-parameter, read-only status tool with no output schema, the description usefully summarizes the returned facets (spawner status, PID, CDP reachability, profile dirs). It stops short of describing error conditions or what an unreachable CDP result implies.

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 coverage is 100% for the single checkCdp parameter, so the schema already documents type, default, and meaning. The description's mention of 'CDP reachability' loosely maps to that parameter but adds no syntax or behavioral detail beyond the schema, 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?

The description pairs the verb 'Inspect' with a specific resource — Chrome/Edge daemon spawner status, process ID, CDP reachability, and profile directories. It clearly differs from generic status siblings like get_emulation_status or cluster_status by naming the exact subsystem inspected, though it does not explicitly name an alternative tool.

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 when-to-use context is given: nothing says to call this before connecting, after spawning, or when debugging a failed browser connection. The diagnostic purpose is implied by 'status' but the agent must infer when this is preferable to siblings such as vibeside_get_emulation_status or vibeside_list_tabs.

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