Checks whether the browser is ready and reports install progress on first use, so agents know when they can act.
Say whether the browser is ready, without doing anything in it. On first use BrowserDo downloads and installs the Embiody browser, which takes a few minutes; until then every other tool replies with the progress instead of acting, and this one reports it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it explains that this is a non-acting status check, that first use triggers a multi-minute browser download/install, and that other tools report progress instead of acting until it is ready. It does not describe the exact returned status/progress format, but the important behavioral caveat is disclosed.
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 short and front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds only the necessary first-use installation caveat. There is no redundant or wasted text.
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 status tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential invocation context and the non-obvious first-use installation behavior. It could be slightly more complete by describing the readiness/progress values returned, but it is sufficient for an agent to know when and why to call it.
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, so there is no parameter semantics for the description to compensate for. The schema is empty and fully covered by its structure, making a baseline 4 appropriate.
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 specific verb and resource: it tells the agent to 'say whether the browser is ready.' It also differentiates this tool from the action-oriented siblings by saying it does so 'without doing anything in it.'
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 gives clear usage context: it is the tool to call when checking readiness, especially during first-use installation when other browser tools only return progress. It does not explicitly say 'call this before using other tools,' but the intended situation is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.