search_chrome_bookmarks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses a key behavioral trait: 'will match both bookmark name and URL'. However, it does not mention case sensitivity, partial matching, ordering, or return format, which limits transparency but is acceptable for a simple read-only search tool.

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 concise, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and includes a clean Args section. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundant information. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

Given the tool has a single parameter, no nested objects, and an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior (search scope, matching criteria). It does not explain return values, but the output schema presumably covers that. Minor omissions like edge-case behavior (no results) are not critical for such a straightforward search tool.

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 input schema has only one required parameter, 'keyword', with no description (schema coverage 0%). The tool description merely restates the parameter as 'keyword: 搜尋關鍵字' (search keyword) without adding semantic detail such as accepted format, examples, or behavior (e.g., case-insensitivity). The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description does not compensate for the lack of schema-level documentation.

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 states it 'searches Chrome bookmarks by keyword' and specifies that it matches both bookmark names and URLs. This precise verb+resource+scope combination effectively differentiates it from sibling tools like search_chrome_history (history) and list_chrome_bookmark_folders (folders).

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 implicitly conveys when to use this tool (to find bookmarks by keyword) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like searching history or listing folders. Usage is implied through the clear purpose, but there is no direct comparison or exclusionary guidance.

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