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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful behavior: local CDP endpoint, pre-send sanitization, and per-provider queueing. It omits critical traits such as blocking/wait behavior, that data is sent to a third-party provider, and what happens on timeout or failure.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, putting the action first and the mechanism second. It is efficiently sized, though the parenthetical endpoint detail is of marginal use to an agent selecting the tool.

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?

This is a complex tool with 10 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description never explains how the response is obtained or returned (blocking wait, polling, session retrieval). It also leaves out the prerequisite that a Chrome instance must be running with CDP enabled on port 9222.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all ten parameters, including session, new_chat, timeout_s and the two file-list variants. The description adds nothing parameter-specific beyond the vague phrases 'sanitizacao previa' and 'fila por provedor', so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('envia consulta para um chat web autenticado') plus the transport mechanism (Chrome CDP on 127.0.0.1:9222), which clearly separates it from siblings like list_chat_sessions or cancel_chat. It does not explicitly name an alternative, but the action is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is only implied by the action itself; there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The sibling preview_payload and chat_bridge_status suggest useful preconditions (payload preview, bridge readiness) that the description never connects to this tool.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the tool interrupts execution or streaming of an ongoing session, but it omits important behavior such as idempotency, permissions, what happens to partial output, and post-cancellation state.

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 with no filler. Every phrase contributes to stating the action and its target.

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 low-complexity cancellation tool with only two optional string parameters and no output schema, the description gives the core action. However, because there are no annotations and the tool is a mutating operation, it is only minimally complete and leaves behavioral details unstated.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains both 'session' and 'session_id' as an alias. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, which fits the baseline of 3.

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 states a specific verb+resource: interrupt the execution or response streaming of an ongoing session. It is clearly a cancellation tool and distinguishable from sibling tools such as list_chat_sessions and chat_bridge_status, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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?

Usage is implied by the phrase 'sessao em andamento': call it to cancel an active session. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of which sibling tool to use instead.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool reports CDP connection status and queue state and can optionally run a doctor check, implying a read-oriented diagnostic operation, but it does not state safety, side effects, failure behavior when CDP is unavailable, or output shape.

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 with no filler. It is dense but efficient, though 'informacoes de status' remains slightly vague.

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 low-complexity, one-optional-parameter status tool, the description names the main status areas. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it omits return-value detail, the meaning of queue state, and behavior when the CDP connection is unavailable.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the doctor parameter is already fully documented in the schema. The description only adds that doctor is optional and tied to self-diagnosis, which is marginal beyond the 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 states a specific verb, 'Retorna', and specific resources: CDP connection status at 127.0.0.1:9222, queue state, and optional doctor diagnostics. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the chat-action siblings, but it does not explicitly name or compare against them.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus ask_web_chat, list_chat_sessions, cancel_chat, or preview_payload. The optional doctor parameter implies a diagnostic use case, but the description gives no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative-selection criteria.

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

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. "Lista" clearly implies a side-effect-free read and the description discloses what categories of state are returned (sessions, busy tabs, leases), which is useful context. However, it says nothing about result ordering, staleness/freshness, volume, or whether any auth/scope is required, which matters for a state-introspection tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, no restatement of the tool name, and nothing extraneous. The scoping qualifier ("ativas", "ocupadas", "em andamento") is presented immediately.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description does give an agent the broad shape of the response (active sessions, busy tabs, in-progress leases), which is the minimum needed to decide whether to call it. But without an output schema the description would need to say more about what a session record contains and how "lease" should be interpreted, and it does not.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate beyond what the empty schema already conveys. Baseline 4 applies; no parameter meaning is added or needed.

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 states a specific verb ("Lista") and resource ("sessoes ativas"), then extends scope to busy tabs and in-progress leases, which makes the tool's output domain clear. It does not name or contrast with the sibling chat_bridge_status, which plausibly overlaps with a session/bridge status read, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no named alternative. An agent reading this cannot tell whether to call it instead of chat_bridge_status for status information. The listing semantics imply a read use case, but the description states nothing explicit.

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

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden. 'Modo dry-run' usefully signals that nothing is sent and the operation is a non-destructive preview, which is the most important behavioral trait. It does not say what happens when a secret or forbidden file is detected (block, warn, or just report), nor what the preview returns.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is dense and readable, though it packs four inspection targets into one clause rather than structuring them, and it is written in Portuguese while sibling tool names are English.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description would ideally say what the preview returns (a pass/fail report, findings list, size estimate). That gap is real, but for a simple three-parameter read-only preview tool the stated scope plus the fully-documented schema covers enough to call it correctly.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains prompt, provider, and filePaths. The description only adds that inspection covers secrets, PII, forbidden files, and size, which loosely maps to prompt/filePaths but adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema, leaving the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 states a specific function: a dry-run inspection of a prompt for secrets, PII, forbidden files, and size before sending. That is concrete and distinct from the send-side sibling ask_web_chat, though the description never names the sibling to make the split explicit.

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 phrase 'antes do envio' (before sending) implies the natural usage point: run this prior to dispatching a request. However, no alternative tool is named, no when-not condition is given, and it is left to the agent to infer that ask_web_chat is the actual send operation.

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