Browser status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does convey that this is a read-only diagnostic ('check', 'list', 'show') with no side effects. However, it says nothing about return format, whether the connection check can fail, or what an agent should do with the result, which leaves gaps for an unannotated tool.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the capability and followed by the usage trigger. Every clause earns its place and nothing is repeated from the name or title.

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?

For a zero-parameter diagnostic tool with no output schema, the description covers what is checked (connection, tabs, active tab) and when to reach for it. It is close to complete, missing only a hint about the shape or limits of the reported status.

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 zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate, and it correctly implies a no-argument invocation.

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 gives specific verbs and resources: check extension connectivity, list open tabs, report the active tab. That is clear enough to separate it from action-oriented siblings like click, navigate, or screenshot, though it never names an alternative tool explicitly.

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 provides an explicit trigger condition: 'Call this first when browser tools seem unavailable.' That is a genuine usage cue rather than implied guidance. It stops short of stating when not to call it or naming a fallback if this tool also fails.

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