Inspect BrowserMesh runtime

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description adds valuable transparency by explicitly stating what the tool never returns (paths, launch arguments, environment values, browser state, raw errors). This gives users a clear picture of the tool's limitations and behavior.

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 concise and well-structured: two sentences that immediately state the action and scope, followed by a usage note and exclusions. No superfluous wording, and the information is front-loaded.

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 no input schema and the description lists what it returns (version, launch state, configuration, session counts) and what it excludes, it is complete for a diagnostic tool. The sibling tools are all action-oriented (create, close, navigate, etc.), so this runtime info tool is clearly differentiated.

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 no parameters, so schema coverage is effectively 100%. The baseline for zero parameters is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it doesn't mislead. It adequately conveys the tool's input requirements (none).

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's purpose: reporting BrowserMesh runtime information (version, launch state, effective configuration, and session counts) without launching Chromium. It uses a specific verb 'report' and resource 'BrowserMesh runtime', and distinguishes itself from action-oriented sibling tools by explicitly mentioning it does not launch Chromium.

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 provides explicit guidance: 'Use this to diagnose setup and capacity safely'. It also contrasts with launching Chromium, implying when not to use it (i.e., when you need to launch or interact with the browser). This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use context.

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