nex_browser_connection_info

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already establishes that this is a safe, non-mutating operation. The description adds the qualifier 'running' to the environments, implying that the tool operates only on active environments, which is useful context beyond the annotation. However, it does not explain behavior for non-running environments or what specific info is returned, so it does not fully leverage the behavioral disclosure opportunity.

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 sentence that is concise and to the point, with no redundant words or unnecessary details. It is well-structured for quick scanning and earns a perfect score for conciseness without sacrificing clarity.

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?

With no output schema, no parameter descriptions, and minimal context, the description is not complete enough for an agent to fully understand what the tool returns or how to properly invoke it. The two required parameters (teamId, windowId) are undocumented, and the expected output format is unspecified. Given the simplicity of the tool, more detail about return values and parameter meanings would be needed for completeness.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for its parameters, and the description does not mention teamId or windowId at all. While the parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description provides no additional meaning, formatting constraints, or examples. Since schema coverage is low, the description must compensate, but it fails to do so entirely.

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's purpose: 'Inspect the status of running NexBrowser environments.' The verb 'inspect' and resource 'status of running NexBrowser environments' are specific enough to differentiate this from other sibling tools like nex_browser_open or nex_browser_list, which manage different aspects. However, it could be more explicit about what 'status' entails (e.g., connection state, active tabs), which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no context about prerequisites (e.g., whether a connection must be established first). With many sibling tools available, the lack of explicit usage direction leaves the agent to infer when 'connection info' is needed. This is a notable gap.

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