chrome_extension_reload

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is provided structurally. The description adds what happens operationally (reload from disk, returns new version), but says nothing about the disruption implied by destructiveHint — e.g., whether the extension restarts, loses state, or drops connection — which is the key behavioral risk here.

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 sentence that front-loads the action and packs the trigger condition and return value without waste.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description covers action, trigger, and return value. The only gap is the nature of the destructive side effect, which annotations flag but do not explain.

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, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies.

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 (reload), a specific resource (the Free Coding Agent Chrome extension), the trigger condition (after it was updated), and the outcome (report the new version). This distinguishes it clearly from chrome_status, which presumably just reports state without reloading from disk.

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 parenthetical 'after it was updated' gives a clear precondition for when to call this. However, no alternative is named — e.g., chrome_status is not referenced as the way to check version without reloading, so the agent must infer that.

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