browser_send_message

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

No annotations provided, so description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'custom message' without mentioning side effects, state changes, destructive potential, or permission requirements. The phrase 'for extensibility' is too vague to inform an agent about consequences.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with action and resource. No redundancy. Although brief, it earns its place by being direct. Could be slightly expanded for better guidance.

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 high schema coverage and lack of output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context on typical use, error behavior, or interaction with other browser tools. An agent may not know when or how to invoke it effectively.

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% with both parameters documented. The description adds 'custom message type' and 'optional data payload', but these merely echo schema descriptions. No additional meaning or constraints are provided beyond the schema.

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 verb 'Send' and resource 'custom message to the Chrome extension', with purpose 'for extensibility'. It distinguishes from siblings like browser_navigate or browser_click by being a generic message-sending tool. However, it doesn't specify what types of messages are possible or their effects.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like browser_evaluate or browser_get_content. The description lacks context about use cases, prerequisites, or conditions under which sending a custom message is appropriate.

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