extension_check_adapter

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It successfully communicates the disabled status upfront, details the comprehensive return structure (hash verification, isReady() state, tool enumeration), and explains the cross-profile/tab aggregation behavior. Missing explicit safety classification (read-only nature), but 'check' verb and diagnostic context imply non-destructive operation.

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?

Three sentences with zero waste: Sentence 1 front-loads the disabled status and core action. Sentence 2 details the per-profile/tab reporting structure. Sentence 3 provides usage guidance with specific failure modes. Critical information (disabled state) appears first, followed by capability description, then usage context—optimal information hierarchy.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description compensates effectively by enumerating the specific diagnostic fields returned (IIFE presence, hash values, isReady() results, tool counts/names). For a diagnostic tool with no annotations, the description adequately explains both the input requirements and the rich structured output without requiring external documentation.

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 coverage is 100% with the 'plugin' parameter fully documented ('The plugin name to check (e.g., "slack", "e2e-test")'). The description references 'a specific plugin' which aligns with the schema but does not add syntax constraints, validation rules, or format details beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 appropriate given schema completeness.

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 action ('Check the adapter injection status'), the resource (adapter IIFE status), and scope (specific plugin across all matching tabs/profiles). The '[Disabled]' prefix immediately signals operational status. It uniquely distinguishes itself from 20+ siblings by focusing on adapter injection diagnostics rather than general browser automation or extension management.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use this tool to diagnose why a plugin's tools are failing' and enumerates specific diagnostic scenarios (adapter not injected, stale hash, isReady() false). Lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance, but the specificity of the three listed failure modes provides clear contextual boundaries for appropriate invocation.

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