chrome_pair

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers: a 30-second expiry window, the required human-in-the-loop confirmation step, the exact binding scope (tab, documentId, page nonce, new epoch), and an explicit negative guarantee that it never grants access to another tab or later navigation. That is unusually rich behavioral disclosure for a session-establishing 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and its time bound, followed by the confirmation requirement and binding guarantees. Every clause adds a fact an agent needs; there is no padding.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description explains what success means, but it does not say how to detect failure or timeout, or what the agent should call next (e.g., chrome_status) while waiting for the user to click Pair. Those gaps keep it from a 5.

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 takes zero parameters and the schema is trivially complete, so baseline 4 applies. Nothing in the description is needed to clarify inputs.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Begin an explicit 30-second pairing request for the active Chrome page.' This is clearly distinct from siblings like chrome_activate or chrome_read, though the description never names an alternative to route against, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Gives clear context and a prerequisite workflow: the request only succeeds after the user inspects the origin and clicks Pair in the Nova extension popup. It does not state when not to use it or which sibling to use instead (e.g., chrome_status to poll for completion), so no exclusions are covered.

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