chromium_profile_summary_tool

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It explains that the tool 'detects whether artifacts are present' and 'returns a small sample' of identifiers, indicating a non-mutating read-only behavior. It also adds the key constraint that the profile should be an extracted copy, not a live directory. This provides meaningful behavioral context, though it does not detail any side effects (which are likely none) or permissions needed.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded. It begins with the purpose, then gives path examples and a prerequisite, and finally states what the tool returns. Every sentence contributes useful information without redundancy or fluff, making it very efficient.

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 description is complete given the tool's complexity. It has an output schema, so return values are already defined. The description explains the tool's role (summary of artifacts), the input requirements (extracted profile path), and what it reports (presence and samples). This covers the necessary context for a tool with only two parameters.

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 already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both profile_path and sample_limit. The description adds value by giving example paths and clarifying that the path should point to an extracted directory, which augments the schema's description. It also explains the sample_limit concept indirectly by stating the tool returns a small sample. This extra context raises it above the baseline.

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's purpose: 'Summarize deep Chromium artifacts available in a browser profile.' It specifies which artifacts are detected (Local Storage, Session Storage, IndexedDB, Cache) and the type of output (sample identifiers). This distinguishes it from the many sibling parse tools, which focus on individual artifact types.

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 clear usage context by giving typical Chromium profile paths and instructing the user to 'Extract with disk-forensics first, then point this tool at the extracted directory.' It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the workflow implies this is a preliminary summary before using dedicated parse tools. It lacks explicit exclusion or alternative guidance, but the intended use is clear.

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