browser_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for transparency. It clearly indicates this is a read-only check (no side effects) and what specific information it provides (online status, explicit tab count). The description adds value beyond what annotations would typically provide by naming the exact outputs.

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, clear sentence that front-loads the key action ('Check') and concisely states the two outputs (online status, explicit tab count). Every word earns its place with no wasted text.

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?

Given the tool has zero parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers its purpose and behavior. It tells the agent exactly what to expect. The only minor gap is not mentioning what 'online' means in terms of response status, but that's likely implicit in the return value.

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 input schema has no parameters (0 required, 100% coverage by default), so the description does not need to explain param details. It correctly implies no user input is needed, which is exactly right for a status check. The score is elevated because the description makes it clear what the tool returns despite having no output schema.

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 what the tool does: check the local connector's online status and count of explicitly shared tabs. It uses a specific verb 'check' and names the resource 'local connector' and feature 'explicitly shared tabs'. This differentiates it from sibling tools like browser_tabs (which likely lists all tabs) or browser_diagnostics (which may do more comprehensive checks).

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 this tool is for checking connectivity and tab-sharing state, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like browser_diagnostics or browser_tabs. No guidance is given on prerequisites (e.g., connector must be configured) or scenarios where this tool is ideal vs. others.

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