Dock status

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

Annotations already declare this as a safe, idempotent read (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the safety bar is covered. The description adds value beyond them by disclosing the reported state model (paused/connected) and latency, which matters since no output schema exists.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core question, then the reported values, then the routing rule. No filler; every sentence 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 zero-arg status tool with no output schema, the description covers what it reports (connection state and latency) and where it fits relative to dock_* and cdp_*. Nothing essential to invoking it correctly is missing.

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, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The absence of params is consistent with a simple status probe.

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?

States a specific, testable question — whether the user's own Chrome (NAVIG Dock) is connected for agent control — and names what it reports (paused/connected state and latency). This clearly distinguishes it from the many dock_* action tools and the cdp_* family.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use dock_* to act in the user's real, logged-in browser and cdp_* only for a separate debug browser. That is strong family-level guidance, though it does not state the precise moment to check status (e.g. before acting) or any exclusion conditions.

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