native_messaging_audit

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and description aligns by describing a non-destructive audit. Description adds value by detailing what it flags (missing binaries, bridges, manifests), which goes beyond the annotation's generic read-only hint.

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 concise sentences: first states purpose, second describes output indicators. No wasted words, front-loaded with key action and scope.

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?

No output schema, so description partially compensates by explaining the kind of flags output. With 3 optional parameters and read-only nature, it provides enough context for most use cases, though exact output format is unspecified.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 3 parameters. Description adds context for aiOnly (AI bridges) but largely reiterates schema details. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'Audit' and specific resources 'local browser native messaging hosts and AI browser bridges'. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on a specific audit domain not covered by others.

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?

Description implies usage for auditing native messaging but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide exclusions. No guidance on prerequisites or context.

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