extension_dev_errors

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of explaining side effects and edge behavior. It only says 'Open the Errors view' without disclosing what happens for invalid IDs, whether the tool requires a previously loaded extension, or whether it changes state beyond opening a view.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the action, target, and key constraint with no filler. It earns its place efficiently.

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 one required parameter, but the absence of any behavioral notes and output schema leaves some uncertainty about return values and error conditions. It is adequate for a minimal 'open view' action, but it could be more complete.

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 sole parameter 'id' has no schema description, and schema_description_coverage is 0%. The description partially compensates by calling it an 'exact extension id' and by restricting it to unpacked extensions, but it does not clarify the meaning of the regex pattern or provide additional context beyond what the parameter name implies.

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 names a specific action ('Open'), a specific resource ('Errors view'), and the exact input ('unpacked extension by exact extension id'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like extension_dev_load, extension_dev_reload, and extension_get.

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 implies when to use the tool: when you need to see the Errors view for an unpacked extension. However, it does not explicitly describe exclusions, prerequisites, or alternatives among the many extension-related siblings, so an agent must infer the intended use case.

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