Check the Gemini browser session

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does well: it names the concrete state field (signedIn), the profile path, and the manual recovery step. It stops short of describing the return shape beyond that one field or what happens on repeated checks, but for a zero-arg status probe this is substantial behavioral context.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then the actionable fallback. The remediation detail is longer than strictly necessary but earns its place by being directly actionable.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description names the field the agent should inspect (signedIn) and the failure remediation (npm run login with the profile path), which is everything an agent needs to interpret and act on the result for this simple probe.

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 no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies a pure no-argument status check and points the agent to the relevant field/state rather than any input.

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 and resource: it reports whether the local Chrome profile still holds a valid Google/Gemini session, anchored to the concrete field signedIn. Sibling tools (gemini_new_conversation, gemini_generate_image) are generation actions, so this diagnostic/status tool is clearly distinguishable.

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?

It explains the condition that selects this tool's output (signedIn false) and gives the exact remediation (

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