chromium_parse_web_data_tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It notes that tables are parsed 'when present,' implying optional missing tables, but it doesn't state whether this is a read-only operation, what happens on locked profiles, or how 'common' tables are determined. There is no mention of side effects, data access limits, or error behavior.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and resource. The second sentence adds a useful detail about supported categories without any filler. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient for an agent to quickly grasp the tool's purpose.

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 presence of an output schema, the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, for a tool with an optional category filter, it's unclear what the default behavior is when no category is provided (does it return all tables?). The phrase 'when present' hints at dynamic table availability but doesn't specify the exact selection behavior or the meaning of 'common' tables. This makes it somewhat incomplete for a robust selection decision.

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 schema already provides 100% parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by giving concrete examples for the 'category' parameter (autofill, keywords, profiles), which helps the agent understand what values to use. For 'limit' and 'profile_path', the schema descriptions are sufficient, and the description doesn't contradict them.

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 parses Chromium Web Data tables, which is a specific resource distinct from sibling tools like history, cookies, or bookmarks. The mention of concrete categories (autofill, keywords, profiles) further clarifies scope. It doesn't explicitly compare against siblings, but the resource name is distinctive enough.

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?

Usage context is implied by the tool's name and scope: it's for Chromium Web Data, not for other Chromium stores or Firefox Web Data. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like firefox_parse_web_data_tool, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The description leaves the when-to-use decision largely to the agent's inference.

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