browser_status

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the safety/behavior burden. 'Return whether' suggests a read-only status query, but it does not explicitly state that calling it will not start or close a session, nor what happens when no session is active. This leaves some ambiguity for a tool with no annotation support.

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 word contributes to the core meaning, and no additional structure is needed for a zero-parameter 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?

The tool is simple and parameterless, but there is no output schema and no annotations. The description conveys a boolean-style status result, yet it omits edge-case behavior such as whether an inactive session returns false or raises an error, and whether any side effects occur.

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 and 100% schema coverage of an empty property set, so there is nothing the description needs to add. The baseline of 4 applies because parameter documentation cannot be improved.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and a well-defined resource ('whether a browser session is currently active'), making the intent unambiguous. This clearly differentiates it from mutation-oriented siblings like start_browser and close_browser.

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 this is the check to call when an agent needs to know whether a browser session exists, especially alongside start_browser and close_browser. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over siblings or what to do based on the result (e.g., start_browser if inactive).

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