extension_dev_load

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals a prerequisite (manifest.json must exist) but does not mention side effects, whether loading replaces an existing extension, errors, return values, or what 'restricted native helper' implies. The operation's consequences are largely undisclosed.

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 with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and object, then immediately states the critical prerequisite. Every sentence 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?

For a one-parameter load operation, the description covers the core purpose and an important requirement, making it minimally viable. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it leaves out expected outcome, error conditions, and how this tool relates to sibling extension tools such as extension_dev_reload or extension_dev_errors.

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 0%, so the description must add meaning to the 'path' parameter. It does clarify that the path points to an unpacked extension directory and must contain manifest.json, which is valuable. However, it does not specify path format, absolute vs relative paths, or error behavior when the directory is invalid.

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 uses a specific verb ('Load') and identifies the exact resource ('an unpacked Chrome extension directory'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling operations like extension_dev_reload or extension_dev_remove. The added qualifier about the restricted native helper and manifest.json requirement strengthens the purpose without ambiguity.

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?

There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as extension_dev_reload or extension_dev_remove. The manifest requirement is a useful precondition, but the description does not state when this initial load should be chosen over the sibling tools or what to do if the extension is already loaded.

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