chromium_parse_extensions_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It identifies the operation as 'parse' but does not state whether it is read-only, requires specific permissions, or has side effects. The typical path is helpful, but there is no mention of behavior for missing profiles or whether the browser must be closed.

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. The first states the purpose directly, and the second provides a useful, concrete example path. Every sentence contributes value without redundancy.

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?

The tool is simple and has a schema with 100% parameter coverage and an output schema, so the description doesn't need to explain return values. It gives enough context to understand that it reads extension metadata from a Chromium profile, and the typical path example helps the agent identify the target. However, it could benefit from a note about prerequisites or limitations.

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 covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond the schema; it merely gives an example of a profile path.

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 begins with 'Parse Chromium installed extension metadata', which uses a specific verb (parse), resource (Chromium extensions), and scope (installed). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like chromium_parse_history_tool or firefox_parse_extensions_tool by naming the exact data target.

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 provides context by giving a typical profile path, which helps the agent understand where the data resides. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention exclusions (e.g., use the Firefox counterpart for Firefox profiles). The usage is implied by the tool name and description.

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