jev_extension_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently states the operation is read-only and side-effect-free: 'does not change settings or call Jev.' It does not describe return behavior, but an output schema is present, so this is not a critical omission.

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 tightly packed sentence. It front-loads the primary action and resource, then adds a valuable side-effect clarification without any filler.

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?

For a zero-parameter status tool with an output schema, the description captures the essential context: what is being read and that no side effects occur. It is slightly light on how this relates to the sibling tools, but the negative 'does not call Jev' provides enough distinction for safe selection.

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 zero properties and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters needing elaboration. Per the 0-param baseline, the description need not add parameter semantics.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Read the popup toggle state.' It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the Jev action siblings by noting it 'does not change settings or call Jev,' so an agent can tell it apart from tools like jev_step or jev_browser_run.

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 implies this is the right tool for read-only status checks through 'Read the popup toggle state' and the exclusion 'does not change settings or call Jev.' However, it never names a specific sibling or states a concrete condition for when to prefer this tool over alternatives.

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