extension_get_state

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 return value structure in detail (connections array with WebSocket status, plugins, network captures, offscreen document status). It implies read-only behavior via 'Get,' though it could explicitly state safety/idempotency given the comprehensive state access.

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 well-structured sentences: status/purpose, return value specification, and usage guidance. No redundant text; every sentence adds distinct value beyond the structured fields.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description appropriately compensates by detailing the return structure (connections array contents). It adequately covers the tool's scope for an extension state inspection tool, though it could mention error handling or behavior when no profiles are connected.

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 contains zero parameters, establishing a baseline of 4 per evaluation rules. The description correctly requires no parameter elaboration since the schema is trivially complete (additionalProperties: false).

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 complete internal state of the OpenTabs Chrome extension' with specific scope (across all connected browser profiles). It distinguishes from siblings like extension_get_logs or browser_get_tab_info by focusing on internal WebSocket status, plugins, and offscreen documents. The '[Disabled]' prefix creates minor ambiguity about whether this refers to the tool status or retrieves disabled states.

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?

Provides implied usage context ('Use this tool to quickly understand the overall health of the extension without opening DevTools'), suggesting it's for health monitoring. However, lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or comparison to alternatives like extension_get_logs (for debugging) or extension_check_adapter (for connection checks).

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