browser_schedule_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool is 'read-only' and returns a 'content-free state', which indicates no side effects. However, it does not disclose potential error conditions, rate limits, or what the 'state' values look like.

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 of eight words. Every word is necessary and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 parameterless tool with no output schema, the description is mostly adequate but could be improved by listing possible state values (e.g., 'active', 'completed') to fully inform the agent of what the 'content-free state' entails.

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?

There are zero parameters, so baseline is 4. The description adds value by clarifying that the tool returns a 'content-free state', giving the agent expectation beyond the empty schema. This is more than a mere restatement of the name.

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 verb 'Return' and resource 'content-free state for in-memory read-only schedules'. It is specific enough to distinguish this tool from siblings like browser_schedule_result and browser_schedule_snapshot, which return full result data or take snapshots respectively.

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 implies use cases (checking schedule state without full content) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like browser_schedule_result, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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