get_chrome_extensions

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

The description reveals that the tool returns curated data for known popular extensions, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose details about caching behavior, data freshness, or any other behavioral aspects. With no annotations provided, the description only partially compensates.

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 with two sentences, front-loading the core purpose and then a critical caveat. No extraneous information.

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?

While the description covers the basic purpose and a limitation, it does not explain the return format or structure. Given that there is no output schema and the tool returns a list, additional context about the response would be helpful but not essential.

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 100%, so all parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool gets popular Chrome Web Store extensions, using the verb 'Get' and specifying the resource. It also notes that because there is no public API, it returns curated data for known extensions, which differentiates it from sibling tools that fetch from other stores like VSCode or WordPress.

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 mentions the limitation of no public API, which implicitly suggests the tool returns curated data, but it does not explicitly specify when to use this tool over alternatives like get_vscode_extensions or get_wordpress_plugins. No exclusion criteria or direct comparison is provided.

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