Browser connection status

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-open-world), so the description need not restate them. It adds value by enumerating the returned signals, which matters because no output schema exists. Minor gap: it does not describe the disconnected/failure shape of the response.

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, no filler. The content report comes first and the call-to-action trigger follows, so the agent gets the essential routing hint at the end without wading through prose.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining the return payload, and it does so by listing the four signal categories. What's missing is how an unhealthy state is expressed (error vs. boolean field), a small but real gap for a diagnostic 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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline applies. The empty schema with additionalProperties=false matches the description's claim that the call needs no arguments.

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?

Names a specific verb ('Reports') and enumerates the exact facts returned: extension connectivity, extension/browser versions, bridge port, and DevTools channel availability. Clearly distinct from siblings like page_info or devtools_context, which report page-level rather than bridge-level state.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger: 'Call this first when other tools report that the extension is not connected.' That is a concrete diagnostic entry point. It does not state when not to call it (e.g., during normal healthy operation), but for a status probe the guidance is sufficient.

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