Native Messaging Audit

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

The description adds context beyond the 'readOnlyHint' annotation by specifying what the audit checks for (missing binaries, pre-authorized bridges, undetected browser manifests). This tells the agent the scope and types of flags, which is valuable behavioral insight.

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 two sentences with no redundant information. It front-loads the core purpose and then lists what is flagged. Every sentence adds value without wasted words.

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 read-only audit tool with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool does and what it finds. It could be improved by mentioning if output is a list or summary, but overall it is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's capabilities.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides for 'platform', 'homeDir', and 'aiOnly'.

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 uses a specific verb ('Audit') and clearly identifies the resources ('local browser native messaging hosts and AI browser bridges') and the outputs ('flags missing host binaries, pre-authorized extension bridges, and manifests for browsers not detected locally'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'security_scan' or 'run_harness'.

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 states what the tool does but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The usage context is implied only by the tool's purpose.

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