browser_list_extensions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden; "List" implies a read-only, side-effect-free operation, and the enumerated fields hint at the response shape, which is reasonable disclosure for a no-param read. It stops short of confirming non-destructiveness, Chrome-version applicability, or whether disabled extensions are included.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and resource lead and the return fields follow. Nothing is redundant or missing.

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 simple zero-param read tool with no output schema, enumerating the returned fields (IDs, names, versions, enabled status, options URLs) covers what the agent needs. Minor gaps remain around scope (all profiles? disabled extensions?) but nothing critical.

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 tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case. The description correctly indicates an unfiltered dump of all extensions, matching the empty schema.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (installed Chrome extensions) and enumerates the fields returned, so the agent knows exactly what this produces. It does not name a sibling to distinguish against (e.g. browser_extension_action), but the resource is distinctive enough that confusion is unlikely.

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?

No when-to-use context, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as browser_extension_action, which operates on extensions. The use case is inferable from the verb, but no guidance is actually given.

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