browser_status

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

Annotations already indicate a read-only, non-destructive, open-world operation. The description adds useful context by enumerating exactly what state is read: session data, held keys, latest sequence result, and dispatch lateness. It does not contradict the annotations and adds meaningful behavioral detail.

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 compact sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and each added clause contributes useful 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-parameter status-read tool, the description names the relevant state categories and is sufficiently complete. There is no output schema, so the description partially stands in for return-value expectations; while it might have described the shape in more detail, it is adequate for this simple tool.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema already fully covers the invocation surface. The description provides all necessary contextual meaning, and the baseline for zero-parameter tools is a 4.

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 names a specific read operation and the resources being inspected: the session, held keys, and latest sequence result including dispatch lateness. This makes it easy to distinguish browser_status from the mutation/control sibling tools.

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 when the tool is useful — when the agent needs to inspect current session/input state — but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or provide exclusions. It is minimally adequate but leaves the decision to inference.

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