Browser bridge status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description itself carries the transparency burden. It clearly frames the operation as a read-only status/check action: 'check whether', 'read nextAction', and 'read cdpEnabled and attachedTabs'. It does not go into failure details or permissions, but the behavioral intent is transparent and not misleading.

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 three short sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the next two sentences add useful read-field context. The content is front-loaded and every sentence contributes to the agent's decision to invoke 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 low-complexity, no-parameter status tool with a straightforward goal. The description covers the purpose and names the key response fields to inspect (nextAction, cdpEnabled, attachedTabs), which respects the lack of an output schema. It does not mention failure modes or field types, but those are not critical at this complexity level.

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 input schema has zero parameters and the schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no hidden parameters to document. Baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description adds no malformed parameter claims. It instead hints at response fields rather than input field, which is appropriate here.

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 concrete action: checking adapter-to-broker connectivity and whether the Chrome extension answers a ping. It names the specific resource (browser bridge status) clearly. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like page_status, but the broker/extension focus makes the purpose distinct enough.

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 some usage context: use it for broker/extension readiness and read nextAction for onboarding coaching. It also gives a conditional instruction to read cdpEnabled and attachedTabs when the extension responds. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over siblings such as page_status or list_tabs, nor does it give exclusion guidance.

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