firefox_parse_preferences_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it parses preferences, with no mention of return format, handling of missing prefs.js, or any limitations. For a parser tool, this is minimal and leaves the agent without insight into edge cases or expected output 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 only two sentences long, with the purpose stated first in a direct, action-oriented sentence. The second sentence provides a useful path example without any redundancy. Every word earns its place.

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 tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is largely complete. It covers the core purpose and provides a path example. The only minor gap is that it doesn't explicitly mention that profile_path should be a directory containing prefs.js, but this is easily inferred. For a straightforward parse tool, this is sufficient.

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 covers all three parameters (100% coverage), providing a baseline of 3. The description adds value by giving a concrete profile path example and explicitly identifying prefs.js as the target file, which clarifies the relationship between profile_path and the file being parsed. This supplementary context raises the score above 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 verb ('Parse') and the specific resource ('Firefox preferences from prefs.js'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like firefox_parse_history_tool by explicitly naming the prefs.js file, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 a typical profile path example, offering some context for when the tool might be used. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., chromium_parse_preferences_tool) or any exclusions. The usage is implied by the name and the path hint, but not fully articulated.

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