diagnostics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool checks local state, including current tasks, and does not touch the network, which is the most important behavioral trait: no calls, no authentication, and no side effects. It leaves implicit that the operation is read-only and does not reveal whether any local state is modified.

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 definition consists of a single compact clause with semicolon-separated scopes, and the offline constraint is stated last where it is prominent. No sentence is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value shape does not need explanation here. For a no-argument local diagnostic tool, the scope list and the offline guarantee are enough to call the tool correctly. The only real omission is routing guidance against similarly named siblings.

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, so there are no parameter semantics to document. A baseline of 4 is appropriate because nothing is left ambiguous on the input side.

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 names a concrete resource set: configuration, data volume, browser dependencies, rate limits, and current tasks. This is more specific than a tautology. It does not explicitly contrast itself with related siblings such as session_status or operation_status, so differentiation is left implicit.

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 usage in troubleshooting and pre-flight situations through the list of things it checks and the note that it does not go online. It never states when an agent should choose this over operation_status or session_status, and it gives no exclusions.

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