okta-browser-status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: 'without exposing cookies', which is a security consideration. However, it does not mention whether the tool requires authentication, whether it is idempotent, or any potential side effects, though for a read-only status tool these are less critical.

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 efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and key characteristics. It is front-loaded with the verb 'Show' and lists multiple aspects without redundancy or wasted words.

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 provides sufficient context for a status-check tool. It could be enhanced by hinting at the output format (e.g., JSON) or typical use cases, but it is adequate for the low complexity level.

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 (100% coverage, zero params). The description does not need to explain parameters, and the baseline score of 4 applies since there is nothing to add.

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 'Shows' specific resources: isolated browser state, current same-origin page, authenticated identity, and proof schedule. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it does not expose cookies, and it contrasts with manipulation tools like okta-browser-navigate or okta-browser-harvest-tokens.

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 usage for checking browser state but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as okta-browser-snapshot or okta-status. No when-not-to-use or conditionals are mentioned.

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