extension_get_side_panel

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and discloses substantial behavioral details: it specifies the return structure (React state with connected/loading/plugins fields, root innerHTML), documents the edge case behavior when the panel is closed ({ open: false }), and explains the multi-profile targeting mechanism. It does not mention rate limits or auth requirements, but the read-only nature is implied by 'Get.'

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 well-structured across four sentences: purpose, return details, edge case handling, and parameter guidance. Each sentence earns its place. The '[Disabled]' prefix slightly detracts from clarity, but the overall information density is appropriate without redundancy.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description adequately compensates by detailing the return format (specific React state fields, innerHTML structure, conditional open flag). For a single-parameter read operation, this level of disclosure is sufficient to enable correct invocation and response handling.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage (connectionId is fully documented in the schema with type and description). The description text reinforces the parameter's purpose ('use connectionId to target a specific profile') but adds no semantic information beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline expectation for high-coverage schemas.

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 tool 'Get[s] the side panel state and rendered HTML' and distinguishes itself from siblings like browser_get_page_html (page vs side panel) and extension_get_state (general extension vs side panel). However, the '[Disabled]' prefix creates ambiguity about whether this indicates the tool is deprecated or refers to retrieving a disabled state, slightly muddying the purpose.

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 provides implied usage guidance by noting when to use connectionId ('When multiple browser profiles are connected') and what to expect if 'the side panel is not open.' However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this over similar tools like extension_get_state or plugin_inspect, and does not specify prerequisites or when-not-to-use conditions.

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