firefox_profile_summary_tool

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It accurately states that the tool only 'Detects whether' artifacts are present, setting expectations that it is a summary/presence check rather than a deep parser. It also gives a typical profile path, aiding correct usage. However, it doesn't explicitly state the tool is read-only or non-destructive, though that is implied.

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 compact (four sentences) and front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds value: the purpose, a typical path, a usage prerequisite, and the list of detected artifacts. No redundant or filler content.

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 has an output schema (per context signals), so the description needn't explain return values. It covers the essential context: what the tool does, what artifacts it checks for, the expected profile path, and a prerequisite step. It could slightly improve by explicitly noting that this is a triage step before using specific parse tools, but current completeness is high.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters already well-documented in the schema. The description adds only a typical path example but no new semantics beyond the schema's 'Absolute path' and 'Maximum number of sample identifiers per artifact.' Baseline 3 applies when the schema handles parameter explanation.

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 action ('Summarize basic Firefox artifacts available in a browser profile') and identifies the specific resource (the Firefox profile). It also lists concrete artifact types it detects, distinguishing it from sibling parse tools that target individual artifacts.

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 gives explicit workflow guidance: 'Extract with disk-forensics first, then point this tool at the extracted directory.' It implies this tool is for triage/summary before using more specific parse tools, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives or state 'use this before firefox_parse_*'.

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