fl_extension

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden, yet it only says this reports extension status. It does not clarify whether the call is read-only, whether the extension must be installed or connected, or what happens when extension mode is unavailable.

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 short sentence with no filler, and the key subject and purpose are front-loaded. It wastes no words, even though it could have been expanded usefully elsewhere.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should ideally say what status information is returned or what extension mode means for invocation. It leaves the agent to discover the actual response by calling the 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 tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The empty input schema is consistent with a simple status-checking tool.

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 resource, the Flintrail browser extension, and a specific concern, its status, so an agent can distinguish it from action-oriented siblings like fl_open or fl_act. It does not explicitly contrast with any sibling, but the status-checking purpose is clear enough to classify the tool.

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 parenthetical '(extension mode)' weakly implies a context, but there is no explicit guidance on when to call this tool instead of alternatives such as fl_tabs or fl_snapshot. It does not state prerequisites or exclusions.

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