chrome_extract_media

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing side effects, permissions, or limitations. It only says 'extract', implying a read operation, but provides no details on whether it executes scripts, requires debugUrl, or what happens to the tab. This is a significant transparency gap.

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 a single sentence with no redundant phrasing, making it concise and front-loaded with the core action. It efficiently lists the extraction targets. However, it is under-specified in other dimensions, but that is not a conciseness failure; it is appropriately sized for the limited information it conveys.

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 tool with 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the one-sentence description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, how filtering works, what 'candidates' means, or how debugUrl is used. The agent would lack essential context to invoke the tool correctly in non-trivial scenarios.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention any of the four parameters (tabId, debugUrl, urlContains, titleContains). It alludes to a 'selected Chrome tab' but does not clarify which parameter controls that selection, nor what the filter parameters do. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of explanations.

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 clearly identifies the tool's function: extracting media, document, iframe, and link candidates from a selected Chrome tab. It uses a specific verb ('extract') and resource ('selected Chrome tab'), and the content types listed help distinguish it from sibling tools like chrome_save_page or chrome_download_urls, though it does not explicitly compare itself to them.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites like Chrome debugging being enabled or the tab being open. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage context entirely.

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